• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Hybrid Cochlear Implant Helps Preserve Residual Low-Frequency Hearing

by Amy Hamaker • April 11, 2016

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

How well does acoustic plus electric processing work for those implanted with a new cochlear implant type, and how does it compare to electric-only processing?

Background: Cochlear implants (CI) have been highly successful in restoring hearing in individuals with postlingual deafness and in children who are prelingually deafened and implanted early. Until recently, those with residual hearing, usually in the low-frequency (LF) apical region of the cochlea, have not been candidates for standard CIs because implantation destroys most useful remaining hearing. A CI that could provide stimulation to the damaged high-frequency regions of the cochlea while preserving LF hearing offers numerous advantages.

You Might Also Like

  • Results Show Long-Term Success for Hybrid CI in Patients with High- Frequency SNHL
  • Preservation of Residual Hearing after Cochlear Implant Using SMA
  • New Cochlear Implant Improves Hearing in Subset of Patients
  • Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: Implant the Better- or Worse-Hearing Ear?
Explore This Issue
April 2016

Study design: Multicenter, longitudinal, single-subject FDA trial with 87 subjects who received a Nucleus Hybrid S8 CI in their poorer ear, running from 2002 to 2011 and involving 19 surgeons across 17 U.S. centers.

Setting: Arizona Ear Center, Phoenix; California Ear Institute, Palo Alto; Center for Hearing & Balance; Dallas Otolaryngology Associates, Dallas; Denver Ear Associates, Englewood, Colo.; House Ear Institute, Los Angeles; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Michigan Ear Institute, Farmington Hills; Midwest Ear Institute, Indianapolis; New York University Cochlear Implant Center; University of California San Francisco; University of Florida, Gainesville; University of Iowa, Iowa City; University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla.; University of Washington, Seattle; UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas.

Synopsis: Surgical implantation of a 10-mm electrode in the scala tympani resulted in hearing preservation in nearly all subjects; only 1.3% experienced total hearing loss within one month following implantation. Individual threshold evaluation at initial activation showed that 94% maintained functional hearing from 125 to 500 Hz. Significant improvements were seen in 82.5% in the hybrid condition, 87.5% in the combined condition, and 60% in the electric-only condition. In both the hybrid and combined conditions, 55% had improvements in speech understanding in noise. Age at implantation was a significant predictor of the consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) score in the hybrid condition but not in the combined condition. The longer the duration of deafness, the lower the CNC score at 12 months post-implantation. A history of noise exposure and male gender had a negative impact on performance with the implant. Fourteen individuals requested that the Hybrid S8 implant be removed due to dissatisfaction with the device. Only a few of these subjects performed significantly better with the standard CI implant. Study limitations included a lack of complete follow-up for some patients and variability in performance.

Bottom line: In this study, the Nucleus Hybrid S8 provided improved word understanding in quiet and noise. Additionally, residual hearing appeared to be stable after initial device activation.

Citation: Gantz BJ, Dunn C, Oleson J, Hansen M, Parkinson A, Turner C. Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: final outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2016;126:962-973.

Pages: 1 2 | Multi-Page

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Otology/Neurotology, Otology/Neurotology, Practice Focus Tagged With: cochlear implants, residual hearing preservedIssue: April 2016

You Might Also Like:

  • Results Show Long-Term Success for Hybrid CI in Patients with High- Frequency SNHL
  • Preservation of Residual Hearing after Cochlear Implant Using SMA
  • New Cochlear Implant Improves Hearing in Subset of Patients
  • Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: Implant the Better- or Worse-Hearing Ear?

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Do you use AI-powered scribes for documentation?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • How to: Positioning for Middle Cranial Fossa Repair of Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Endoscopic Ear Surgery: Advancements and Adoption Challenges 

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • The Importance of Time Away
    • Endoscopic Ear Surgery: Advancements and Adoption Challenges 
    • Reflections from a Past President of the Triological Society
    • ENT Surgeons Explore the Benefits and Challenges of AI-Powered Scribes: Revolutionizing Documentation in Healthcare
    • How To: Open Expansion Laryngoplasty for Combined Glottic and Subglottic Stenosis

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939