Fully Implantable Hearing System (FIHS)

I think your only way would be to find someone at the CI company that will talk with you about it...honestly my knowledge of CI"s is very limited aside from the fact that even the new ones are very large. With the miniaturization of hearing aids in recent years, I'd figure that if it was possible to do it for a CI, they would have.

[Um bongo]

Originally Posted by Cyborg

If the Totally Implantable Cochlear Implant components size is the problem, there may be other solutions. I need honest opinions though, if possible. My idea is to take away the Totally Implantable microphone and Implantable battery away from the Totally Implantable cochlear implant, while leaving the Totally Implantable speech processor in the Totally Implantable cochlear implant. To compensate for this, a chip microphone communicates with the Totally Implantable T-coil. For example, if Totally Implanted cochlear implant users had a Totally Implantable/Invisible T-coil inside the head integrated with the Totally Implantable speech processor, then a neckloop (e.g. CLA 7) could communicate wirelessly with the Totally Implantable T-coil.

In short, what I'm trying to say is, if the Totally Implantable cochlear implant canceled a Totally Implantable microphone- it would make it significantly smaller. All the while, a chip microphone that can communicate with the Totally Implantable/Invisible T-coil is surgically placed in the outer ear canal allowing complete invisibility. Or, a neckloop (such as CLA 7) is resorted to, and it communicates wirelessly with the Totally Implantable T-coil. Another huge advantage of a small external microphone communicating with the Totally Implantable T-coil (whether in the outer ear canal or in the form of a neck loop) is that it allows the Totally Implantable battery to be much smaller and last longer. The following reasons:

1) The Totally Implantable microphone is canceled.

2) Since the Totally Implantable microphone is cancelled, it's less work for the Totally Implantable battery.

3) An external microphone communicating with the Totally Implantable T-coil provides instant clean audio quality signals instantly. And, it does not take an ounce of energy away from the Implantable battery (just the CLA 7 neck loop's double-A batteries).

4) Totally Implantable microphones can be complicated, and the Totally Implantable speech processor may have to do much more calculations in order to compensate, such as cancelling body noises and et cetera. This drains the Totally Implantable battery, which makes it larger, and therefore more difficult to implant during surgery. But, a microphone from an outside source that communicates wirelessly with the Totally Implantable T-coil/Totally Implantable cochlear implant instantly provides perfect quality sounds without making the speech processor work harder.

If this could work, how do I get cochlear implant companies to pursue this technology?

Thanks.

If you speak to people like Cochlear, you'll find it's what they have on the table already.

But, you still have to power it, drive the transducers and receive a clean signal: all of which becomes several times more difficult when you need to make the device hermetically sealed and medically safe.

[jljones1]

Originally Posted by Cyborg

Is the Otokinetics Fully Implantable Hearing System for middle ear implants or cochlear implant?

I think that there are already a lot of Totally Implantable middle ear implants out there like the Envoy, Carina, etc. If the Otokinetics is another Totally Implantable middle ear implant, I'm going to pull out my hair and lose my mind!! What is with the obsession with Totally Implantable middle ear implants and completely forgetting about Totally Implantable cochlear implant??????????

I have a little more information. As I understand it, the Otokinetics FIHS device, called the "Krescendo", is not considered a middle ear implant. Part of the device is attached on or near the cochlea. It will be intended for both sensorineural and conductive losses, moderate through profound ranges.

It is designed to restore high frequencies over 10 kHz, so should do well with ski-slope losses.

Safety studies are almost complete with good results. Human trials are expected to start in about a year. The company hopes to gain FDA approval in about 2 years.

(I got this info from the company. Their website has a "contact us" section. I sent them questions twice and both times, they were very quick to respond.)

Originally Posted by jljones1

I have a little more information. As I understand it, the Otokinetics FIHS device, called the "Krescendo", is not considered a middle ear implant. Part of the device is attached on or near the cochlea.

It is designed to restore high frequencies over 10 kHz, so should do well with ski-slope losses.

Since the cochlea is entirely encased in bone, except for the portion that is connected to the middle ear, I'm not sure how they plan to attach it on/near the cochlea if it's not in the middle ear. If the device is implanted in the middle ear to gain proximity to the cochlea...then doesn't that make it a middle ear implant???

Why are they working to "restore" hearing to frequencies over 10KHz when there is no valuable speech information at those frequencies? What's their projected benefit? One last thing, if the cochlea is damaged at/above 10KHz, you can't "restore" hearing. You can amplify all you want but it won't be "restoring" anything. I believe that is very misleading wording.

[corey]

It would be nice if they could come up with a way to tap in to the body bio-electric system of ours to power these aids. that would remove the toxic chemicals related to the battery.

This would also remove some balk hopefully.

[corey]

Originally Posted by Cyborg

If the Totally Implantable Cochlear Implant components size is the problem, there may be other solutions. I need honest opinions though, if possible. My idea is to take away the Totally Implantable microphone and Implantable battery away from the Totally Implantable cochlear implant, while leaving the Totally Implantable speech processor in the Totally Implantable cochlear implant. To compensate for this, a chip microphone communicates with the Totally Implantable T-coil. For example, if Totally Implanted cochlear implant users had a Totally Implantable/Invisible T-coil inside the head integrated with the Totally Implantable speech processor, then a neckloop (e.g. CLA 7) could communicate wirelessly with the Totally Implantable T-coil.

In short, what I'm trying to say is, if the Totally Implantable cochlear implant canceled a Totally Implantable microphone- it would make it significantly smaller. All the while, a chip microphone that can communicate with the Totally Implantable/Invisible T-coil is surgically placed in the outer ear canal allowing complete invisibility. Or, a neckloop (such as CLA 7) is resorted to, and it communicates wirelessly with the Totally Implantable T-coil. Another huge advantage of a small external microphone communicating with the Totally Implantable T-coil (whether in the outer ear canal or in the form of a neck loop) is that it allows the Totally Implantable battery to be much smaller and last longer. The following reasons:

1) The Totally Implantable microphone is canceled.

2) Since the Totally Implantable microphone is cancelled, it's less work for the Totally Implantable battery.

3) An external microphone communicating with the Totally Implantable T-coil provides instant clean audio quality signals instantly. And, it does not take an ounce of energy away from the Implantable battery (just the CLA 7 neck loop's double-A batteries).

4) Totally Implantable microphones can be complicated, and the Totally Implantable speech processor may have to do much more calculations in order to compensate, such as cancelling body noises and et cetera. This drains the Totally Implantable battery, which makes it larger, and therefore more difficult to implant during surgery. But, a microphone from an outside source that communicates wirelessly with the Totally Implantable T-coil/Totally Implantable cochlear implant instantly provides perfect quality sounds without making the speech processor work harder.

If this could work, how do I get cochlear implant companies to pursue this technology?

Thanks.

If you wore the mic as a neck piece directly on your skin the radiation output over LONG periods could lead to cancer. The transmitter would need to be away from your body a certain distance especially if used long hours. Radiation is accumulative with a LONG half life.

it is not like back ground radiation because of its concentrated exposure right at the skin in the same location.

I Learned about radiation exposure and cumulative effect from the 7 1/2 hours , being continually exposed to x-ray during heart surgery. This allowed them to watch live what was going on inside.

so radiation exposure by transmitter is something to watch when in contact with skin.

even cell phones require certain distance from skin when in the on mode. It is in the warning section of the manual.

so try to come up with a way to transmit without radiation or try to come up with a way to suspend the transmitter a certain distance from the body. Not sure how you would suspend it without it being noticeable.

The manufacturer is going to say the radiation level is safe because they want to sell. The manufactures are not going to care if the radiation does slow harm because it will be hard to prove it was their device that did it. So as the user, of the device, you need to take steps to protect yourself when pursuing this.

so something to think about cyborg.... when pursuing the CI companies.

Just curious why so hell bent on getting CI instead of using HA?

Also why would you want an untried tech implanted that could risk your life. especially with anti-biotic resistant infection around now days and the risk of said tech breaking regularly due to limited testing? break downs means surgery, means more risk of infections.

anti-biotic resistant infection is a bigger issue than most people know.

I know about it because of my proximity to MAYO CLINIC.

MAYO stance on infection now is, don't do anything unless it is life threatening. I have had several infections, they did not give anti-biotic for. One blood, another throat. Blood infection was bed ridden for a week, throat for a month of painful swallowing.

So do you really want to risk it? Why get cut open, if its not necessity, especially so close to your brain?

Is it because you want to fit in to be "normal"?

What is truly normal? Who criteria is it?

If you were deaf or 90% loss, then I would understand taking the risk.

I had a fantasy when I was a kid to get robotic ears to replace my real ones because every part of my ear is bad except the ear drum. Then I got older and reality decided to slap me. I dreamed of this back in the 80's before CI was ever born.

reality was we are not perfect the tech we make isn't perfect either. Hearing is not an absolute necessity to survival, just makes it harder.

tech can't repair itself unlike tissue, so when the tech breaks, major surgery is required. Then there is the pain....

[prodigyplace]

I think you are looking for the legal experts forum. You must have typoed.

This is the hearing aids forum. There are very few (if any) legal experts here.

[woodchippz]

Cyborg, I am researching CIs and saw a provider who claims to participate in US clinical trials, and claims to have access to CIs not yet approved in the US. I do not know if this would include the fully implantable ones you reference from Australia...... I can not post links so please google the Koss Cochlear Implant Program. The main page under surgical procedures is where I read about this. I have a consut with them in late april. Maybe they have what you are looking for.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Cyborg

3) Does anybody, including audiologists and experts here, HAVE any idea at all what the above article is talking about? Could it REALLY be that the article is implying an invisible cochlear implant as the next generation product?


Please keep me informed!

Thanks.

Maybe, except I would view it as "a" next generation device, not necessarily "the" next generation.

It will come out when they get the technology ready and there is a viable market at the price they would have to charge. Not a minute sooner but also, not a minute later. But for now there is no such device and the device you have is helping you hear whereas just a few years ago you would not have had so many options.

[Andrew]

I would like to hear more about the Otokinetics product, if possible.



From a published article, "OtoKinetics Inc. was formed in 2009 to develop and commercialize an extraordinary hearing device. Invented by otologist Dr. George Lesinski, the Fully Implantable Hearing System (“FIHS”) uses multiple patented, proprietary technologies to directly stimulate the cochlear fluid, bypassing the eardrum and the middle ear."


Do audiologists on the Hearing Aids Forum know if the Otokinetics product directly stimulating the cochlear fluid would work for those with profound ranges?