The next step in the development of the CI was its clinical trial on a cohort of patients. In , the first international conference on the "electrical stimulation of the acoustic nerve as a treatment for profound sensorineural deafness in man" was organized in San Francisco. The final step in the establishment of CI as a clinically feasible technology involved the independent evaluation of implant users. However, microphone and battery issues have resulted in most modern day devices having both the battery and microphone still externally worn.
In the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT developed a fully implantable biological battery that could further facilitate the development of a more viable fully implantable cochlear implant system FICIS. The American Federal Drug Administration FDA states that as of December , approximately , patients worldwide have received cochlear implants. There is also a fourth company, Oticon Medical which is available in Canada. These implants are approved for both unilateral and bilateral implantation, and for ages as young as six months.
While individual implantation sites have specific criteria, generally, to be considered for cochlear implants one must have at least moderate to moderate-severe SNHL, although psychosocial and general health considerations also play a role. Preoperative imaging typically a computed tomography scan is undertaken to ensure there are no significant structural that may preclude implantation success. A preliminary report was made by John Doyle, and discussed by William House, at the 16th clinical meeting of the American Medical Association, held in Los Angeles on November 27, , 24 followed by another report a few months later to the Los Angeles Neurological Society 25 p :.
An induction coil which had been previously imbedded in a plastic case methyl methacrylate was inserted in a craniectomy defect in the squamous position of a temporal bone of a patient suffering from essentially total congenital perceptive hearing loss.
The active electrode was passed through a tunnel of bone into the middle ear and through a fenestra in the promontory of the cochlea between the oval and round windows. The procedure was also reported to the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology on October 19, After William House and Jim Doyle introduced implantation at the cochlea, fundamental physiological research began, notably in Germany and in the United States. On July 26, , the Stanford University team of otolaryngologist Blair Simmons and engineer Robert White perioperatively conducted stimulation tests through a posterior craniotomy, with an electrode placed on the acoustic nerve, and then displaced on the inferior colliculus with less success.
It is noteworthy that the incus was removed, and the electrode was slid through the epitympanic recess; the stapes being also removed, the medial wall of the vestibule was exposed, upon which the anterior ridge of the saccular recess could be seen. Using this landmark as a guide, a preliminary 2 mm hole was made in the promontory approximately 3 mm anterior and 1 mm inferior to the superior margin of the oval window.
Next a 0. Nerve-like tissue could be seen through the modiolar hole. A six-electrode array was then successfully passed through the promontory hole and into the modiolar hole to a depth of about mm. The electrode was percutaneously connected with the external device. The patient was then regularly observed and examined. This was the first implantation of a multichannel CI. This procedure was reported in Science in , 30 and the following year Simmons' team published the first extensive article on the different aspects of electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in humans.
By , William House and Jack Urban, an electrical engineer, had worked out the details for a new approach to the CI.
Instead of placing an induction coil beneath the skin, they developed a percutaneous button containing an induction coil. In early , conditions were ripe to try new implantations on 3 patients.
As reported in , William House performed implantation on a patient on September 24, , using a silver multiple hard wire electrode. In , House added 2 other patients. Unfortunately, after several weeks, the button loosened in the bone, resulting in the failure of the system. The second patient received his implant in the right ear, on June 18, Two years later, this patient also underwent implantation at the left ear with a multielectrode CI Figure 3.
The relationship between the CI innovators during this period was collaborative, as well as competitive. The physicians met regularly, also in private. In , William House and Urban published their first article about the long-term results of electrode implantation and electronic stimulation of the cochlea in 1 patient. The article was presented and discussed at the meeting of the American Otological Society, April 6 to 7, William House 22 p concluded his study by stating,.
We feel that the electronic cochlea is now ready for more widespread testing and development. We present this evidence in the hope that teams. The main critique of these first, mostly single-channel CI prototypes was the difficulty with insulating the electrode. The next step in the development of the CI was its use in clinical practice on a cohort of patients. Merzenich conducted various studies at the turn of on cats 35 and was interested, contrary to Michelson, in the development of a multichannel CI.
After these animal experiments, the UCSF team selected 4 patients who were tested with an electrode placed temporarily in the lower scala under local anesthesia. Two of these patients finally received a totally implanted CI in A transcanal approach was used to place the single bipolar electrode 36 p :. A shallow groove was cut in the posterior canal wall deep enough to receive the leads from the intracochlear electrode.
The electrode was then inserted through the round window into the lower scala. The lead terminated in a tiny amplitude-modulated radio receiver placed beneath the skin. A preliminary report was published in , followed by a more complete one that was presented a few months later during the American Otological Society Meeting in San Francisco, May 28 to 29, I seem to have a number of friends here today.
In June , the first international conference on electrical stimulation of the acoustic nerve as a treatment for profound sensorineural deafness in humans was organized in San Francisco.
The reports of this first congress were published 1 year later and specially distributed to the participants. Confronted with the low level of success in speech discrimination with a single electrode, other types of devices were developed with multiple electrodes. After 3 years of laboratory work with the physiologist Patrick MacLeod, Chouard 39 - 41 reported 6 implantations of a device with 7 electrodes on patients presenting total bilateral deafness in Each electrode was introduced into the cochlea through a separate fenestration of the scala tympani.
An electrically isolated compartment was made in the scala for each electrode by means of little pieces of silastic. On September 22, , Chouard completed his first implantation. On March 16, , a patent French 77 ; US 4 for this device was deposited with the main claim being A system with n sets of electrodes implantable in the cochlea at n different locations so chosen that when they are stimulated the electrodes allow the brain to identify n different frequencies comprised in the audible range.
This device prompted other researchers to continue the development of a multichannel CI, and they were not limited by Chouard's patent. In , Chouard organized, in Paris, the first international course on the multielectrode CI. William House, Michelson, and Schindler were participants. This required inserting multiple electrodes in the inner ear to excite the separate groups of hearing nerves that convey different pitch sensations. Another crucial step in this period involved the independent evaluation of CI.
The first such evaluation was published in by the audiologist and neurophysiologist Robert Bilger and coworkers 54 from Pittsburgh. This study was the result of a request from the National Institutes of Health dated March William House organized an electroanatomy conference at what is now known as the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles in This meeting was intended to include all of the staff working on CI projects.
The future of CI technology would in fact be dominated by the multichannel single-wire electrode initiated by Simmons and White and implanted by Michelson's team in Figure 4 , as well as by Clark in Figure 5. Clinical results were published beginning in , by Clark for 2 patients 55 - 58 and by Michelson for 1 patient, 59 along with the speech discrimination tests necessary to study these results. These experiments definitively launched the commercialization period.
In Germany, Belgium, and Austria, other groups began to conduct new experiments on electrical stimulation of the ear in animals and humans in order to develop and produce new multichannel devices Table. This required close collaboration between surgeons and engineers; moreover, the commercialization period coincided with the increase in prevalence of university-industry partnerships and the growth of medical electronics as a field.
Priority of patents and the possibility for commercial development were for some groups the indisputable motor. This led to the organization of the first international meeting on CI in San Francisco in , which introduced this new technology to an even wider audience.
Ultimately, the establishment of clinical feasibility for CI, as well as the commercialization of the technology, intensified the competitiveness between the various research groups, leading Simmons 60 p6 to write in ,. There is a certain reluctance about openly sharing results. Implants are dramatic research. I suspect that there are more than a few workers in this field who secretly suspect that a Nobel Prize lurks somewhere just beyond the next success.
I hope these attitudes will not encumber solving the problems. Submitted for Publication: February 8, ; final revision received August 30, ; accepted January 15, Author Contributions: Dr Mudry had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design : Mudry. Acquisition of data : Both authors. Analysis and interpretation of data : Mudry. All three found they could get some benefit from these implants. A few years later, from to , an array of electrodes were placed in cochleas, with satisfactory results. Implant technology leaped forward in the seventies through the nineties. The seventies saw more people getting implanted, continued research, and the development of a multichannel device.
In , the cochlear implant was no longer deemed experimental and was given the stamp of FDA approval for implantation in adults. Throughout the nineties, other improvements were made in speech processors and other implant technology, particularly the miniaturization of the speech processor so that it could be incorporated into a BTE hearing aid-like device. Sign up for our Health Tip of the Day newsletter, and receive daily tips that will help you live your healthiest life.
The cochlear implant: historical aspects and future prospects. Anat Rec Hoboken. Mudry A, Mills M. The early history of the cochlear implant: a retrospective. The nature of acoustic response: The relation between sound frequency and frequency of impulses in the auditory nerve.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Brownell WE. How the ear works - nature's solutions's for listening. Volta Rev. Clark GM.
0コメント