search
Back to results

Safety and Effectiveness of the MED-EL Electric-Acoustic System (EAS)

Primary Purpose

Hearing Loss

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Electric Acoustic System
Sponsored by
Med-El Corporation
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Hearing Loss focused on measuring sensorineural hearing loss, ski slope audiogram, electric acoustic stimulation

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - 70 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Audiologic tests suggest a moderate sloping to severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss in the ear to be implanted. The non-implanted ear may fall outside of these criteria; however, threshold levels cannot be better than the indication criteria (for example, the non-implanted ear must be 60 dB or poorer at 1000 Hz, 70 dB or poorer at 2000-8000 Hz).
  • Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels for the ear to be implanted shall fall at or within the following levels:

    250 Hz - 500 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 65 dB HL 750 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 75 dB HL 1000-1500 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 60 dBHL (ie. 60-110+ dB HL) 2000 Hz - 8000 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 70 dB HL

  • Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+ *110+ *110+ *90+
  • Pure-tone air-conduction thresholds for both ears are within 20 dB of each other at 250, 500 and 1000 Hz.
  • Air-bone gap at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz should be <10 dB at two or more of these frequencies.
  • Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition.
  • Normal middle ear anatomy and function (based on clinical assessment of tympanometry and acoustic reflex results). No prior middle ear surgery or history of postadolescent, chronic middle ear infections or inner ear disorders (i.e. vertigo or Meniere's syndrome).
  • No evidence that hearing loss origin is retrocochlear.
  • Current user of bilateral acoustic hearing aids for at least 3 months. Note: If the subject has not been a successful hearing aid user (i.e. improper fit, feedback and/or discomfort from high frequency amplification), he/she must complete a hearing aid trial in the ear to be implanted for at least 1 month. If the ear to be implanted is poorer than the contralateral ear, then the subject must complete a hearing aid trial in both ears for at least 1 month to ensure that he/she is tested in the best-aided condition.
  • Adults 18-70 years of age at time of implantation.
  • Persons who currently exhibit sufficient understanding and communicative skills to comprehend general conversation in an "oral/aural mode" through normal conversation channels.
  • English as primary language.
  • Appropriate motivation and expectation levels.

Expanded Criteria:

Study Arm 2 candidates are those who meet the inclusion criteria listed above with the exception that:

In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 250, 500, and/or 750 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 10 dB HL, and/or In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 1000 and/or 1500 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 60 dB HL and/or In their best-aided condition, they score 51-60% on monosyllabic word scores.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Conductive, retrocochlear or central auditory disorders.
  • Hearing loss in the ear to be implanted that has demonstrated a recent fluctuation at two or more frequencies of 15 dB in either direction in the last 2 years as demonstrated by serial audiograms. Note: In cases where 2-year documentation is missing, documentation of at least 18 months is necessary along with patient report of no fluctuation in the past 2 years. If 18-month data is unavailable, the patient must be monitored until 18-month data is available.
  • Any physical, psychological, or emotional disorder that would interfere with surgery or the ability to perform on test and rehabilitation procedures.
  • Developmental delays or organic brain dysfunction.
  • Physical or geographic limitations that may interfere with the completion of scheduled follow-up evaluations.
  • Skin or scalp conditions that could preclude magnetic attachment of the speech processor or use of the acoustic hearing aid.

Sites / Locations

  • Stanford University Medical Center
  • University of Miami
  • Indiana University School of Medicine
  • University of Kansas Medical Center
  • University of Michigan
  • Boys Town
  • New York Eye & Ear
  • University of North Carolina Hospital
  • Duke University Medical Center
  • Oregon Health Sciences Center
  • Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
  • University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
  • Swedish Medical Center
  • Medical College of Wisconsin

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Experimental

Arm Label

Original Audiological Criteria

Expanded Audiological Criteria

Arm Description

Inclusion Criteria: Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+*110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition.

Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+*110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition. Study Arm 2 candidates are those who meet the inclusion criteria listed above with the exception that: In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 250, 500, and/or 750 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 10 dB HL, and/or In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 1000 and/or 1500 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 60 dB HL and/or In their best-aided condition, they score 51-60% on monosyllabic word scores.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Preoperative Hearing Aid Alone Condition.
CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the total percent correct for EAS at 12 months giving a percentage point improvement in speech perception with EAS.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Cochlear Implant Alone Condition
CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for the CI Alone condition was subtracted from the total percent correct for the EAS condition at 12 months giving an improvement in speech perception with EAS compared to CI Alone.
Improvement on Speech Perception in the CI-only Condition as Compared to the Preoperative With Hearing Aid Condition.
CNC words are scored as the percent correct out of 50 words. The percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the percent correct for CI Alone at 12 months giving an improvement on speech perception for CI Alone compared to preoperative hearing aids.
Increased Benefit With EAS as Compared to Their Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the APHAB Questionnaire.
A lower score on the APHAB indicates a better performance. The global score for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the global score for EAS at 12 months giving an improvement on the APHAB with EAS.
Increase in Satisfaction With EAS Compared to Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the HDSS.
Satisfaction is ranked from 1-5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Data reported is the percentage of subjects who experienced an increase in satisfaction when using EAS compared to preoperative hearing aids.

Full Information

First Posted
September 4, 2008
Last Updated
April 10, 2017
Sponsor
Med-El Corporation
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00747435
Brief Title
Safety and Effectiveness of the MED-EL Electric-Acoustic System
Acronym
EAS
Official Title
The MED-EL EAS (Electric-Acoustic System) Using the PULSARCI100 FLEXeas / SONATATI100 FLEXeas and the DUET Speech Processor
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
April 2017
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
February 2007 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
February 2016 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
February 2016 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Med-El Corporation

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
Yes
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The purpose of this investigation is to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the MED-EL Electric-Acoustic System (EAS), a medical device that combines the use of a cochlear implant with an external electric-acoustic processor designed to provide benefit in speech perception and sound quality to individuals with a sensorineural hearing loss with minimal changes in residual hearing. The acoustic component of the processor will aid residual acoustic hearing in low frequency ranges, while the cochlear implant and electric component of the processor will be used to electrically stimulate the auditory nerve across a wide range of frequencies necessary for speech perception.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Hearing Loss
Keywords
sensorineural hearing loss, ski slope audiogram, electric acoustic stimulation

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Single Group Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Non-Randomized
Enrollment
73 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Original Audiological Criteria
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Inclusion Criteria: Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+*110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition.
Arm Title
Expanded Audiological Criteria
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+*110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition. Study Arm 2 candidates are those who meet the inclusion criteria listed above with the exception that: In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 250, 500, and/or 750 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 10 dB HL, and/or In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 1000 and/or 1500 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 60 dB HL and/or In their best-aided condition, they score 51-60% on monosyllabic word scores.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Electric Acoustic System
Other Intervention Name(s)
EAS, Electric Acoustic Systems
Intervention Description
Combination of a cochlear implant and a hearing aid
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Preoperative Hearing Aid Alone Condition.
Description
CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the total percent correct for EAS at 12 months giving a percentage point improvement in speech perception with EAS.
Time Frame
12 months post initial activation
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Cochlear Implant Alone Condition
Description
CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for the CI Alone condition was subtracted from the total percent correct for the EAS condition at 12 months giving an improvement in speech perception with EAS compared to CI Alone.
Time Frame
12 months initial activation
Title
Improvement on Speech Perception in the CI-only Condition as Compared to the Preoperative With Hearing Aid Condition.
Description
CNC words are scored as the percent correct out of 50 words. The percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the percent correct for CI Alone at 12 months giving an improvement on speech perception for CI Alone compared to preoperative hearing aids.
Time Frame
12 months post initial activation
Title
Increased Benefit With EAS as Compared to Their Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the APHAB Questionnaire.
Description
A lower score on the APHAB indicates a better performance. The global score for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the global score for EAS at 12 months giving an improvement on the APHAB with EAS.
Time Frame
12 months post initial activation
Title
Increase in Satisfaction With EAS Compared to Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the HDSS.
Description
Satisfaction is ranked from 1-5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Data reported is the percentage of subjects who experienced an increase in satisfaction when using EAS compared to preoperative hearing aids.
Time Frame
12 months post initial activation

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
70 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Audiologic tests suggest a moderate sloping to severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss in the ear to be implanted. The non-implanted ear may fall outside of these criteria; however, threshold levels cannot be better than the indication criteria (for example, the non-implanted ear must be 60 dB or poorer at 1000 Hz, 70 dB or poorer at 2000-8000 Hz). Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels for the ear to be implanted shall fall at or within the following levels: 250 Hz - 500 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 65 dB HL 750 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 75 dB HL 1000-1500 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 60 dBHL (ie. 60-110+ dB HL) 2000 Hz - 8000 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 70 dB HL Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+ *110+ *110+ *90+ Pure-tone air-conduction thresholds for both ears are within 20 dB of each other at 250, 500 and 1000 Hz. Air-bone gap at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz should be <10 dB at two or more of these frequencies. Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition. Normal middle ear anatomy and function (based on clinical assessment of tympanometry and acoustic reflex results). No prior middle ear surgery or history of postadolescent, chronic middle ear infections or inner ear disorders (i.e. vertigo or Meniere's syndrome). No evidence that hearing loss origin is retrocochlear. Current user of bilateral acoustic hearing aids for at least 3 months. Note: If the subject has not been a successful hearing aid user (i.e. improper fit, feedback and/or discomfort from high frequency amplification), he/she must complete a hearing aid trial in the ear to be implanted for at least 1 month. If the ear to be implanted is poorer than the contralateral ear, then the subject must complete a hearing aid trial in both ears for at least 1 month to ensure that he/she is tested in the best-aided condition. Adults 18-70 years of age at time of implantation. Persons who currently exhibit sufficient understanding and communicative skills to comprehend general conversation in an "oral/aural mode" through normal conversation channels. English as primary language. Appropriate motivation and expectation levels. Expanded Criteria: Study Arm 2 candidates are those who meet the inclusion criteria listed above with the exception that: In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 250, 500, and/or 750 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 10 dB HL, and/or In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 1000 and/or 1500 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 60 dB HL and/or In their best-aided condition, they score 51-60% on monosyllabic word scores. Exclusion Criteria: Conductive, retrocochlear or central auditory disorders. Hearing loss in the ear to be implanted that has demonstrated a recent fluctuation at two or more frequencies of 15 dB in either direction in the last 2 years as demonstrated by serial audiograms. Note: In cases where 2-year documentation is missing, documentation of at least 18 months is necessary along with patient report of no fluctuation in the past 2 years. If 18-month data is unavailable, the patient must be monitored until 18-month data is available. Any physical, psychological, or emotional disorder that would interfere with surgery or the ability to perform on test and rehabilitation procedures. Developmental delays or organic brain dysfunction. Physical or geographic limitations that may interfere with the completion of scheduled follow-up evaluations. Skin or scalp conditions that could preclude magnetic attachment of the speech processor or use of the acoustic hearing aid.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Debra Tucci, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Duke University
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Christina Runge, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
Medical College of Wisconsin
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Michael Ruckenstein, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Hinrich Staecker, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Kansas Medical Center
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Peter Roland, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Oliver Adunka, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University of North Carolina Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Ronald Hoffman, MD
Organizational Affiliation
New York Eye and Ear
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Richard Miyamoto, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Indiana University School of Medicine
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Teresa Zwolan, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Michigan
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Nikolas Blevins, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Stanford University
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Rodney Lusk, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Boys Town
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Fred Telischi, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Miami
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Douglas Backous, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Swedish Medical Center
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Frank Warren, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Oregon Health Sciences Center
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Stanford University Medical Center
City
Stanford
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
94035
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Miami
City
Miami
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
33136
Country
United States
Facility Name
Indiana University School of Medicine
City
Indianapolis
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
46202
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Kansas Medical Center
City
Kansas City
State/Province
Kansas
ZIP/Postal Code
66160
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Michigan
City
Ann Arbor
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48108
Country
United States
Facility Name
Boys Town
City
Omaha
State/Province
Nebraska
ZIP/Postal Code
68131
Country
United States
Facility Name
New York Eye & Ear
City
New York
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
10003
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of North Carolina Hospital
City
Chapel Hill
State/Province
North Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
27514
Country
United States
Facility Name
Duke University Medical Center
City
Durham
State/Province
North Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
27710
Country
United States
Facility Name
Oregon Health Sciences Center
City
Portland
State/Province
Oregon
ZIP/Postal Code
97239
Country
United States
Facility Name
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
City
Philadelphia
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
19104
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
City
Dallas
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
75390
Country
United States
Facility Name
Swedish Medical Center
City
Seattle
State/Province
Washington
ZIP/Postal Code
98122
Country
United States
Facility Name
Medical College of Wisconsin
City
Milwaukee
State/Province
Wisconsin
ZIP/Postal Code
53226
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
17364328
Citation
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I. Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007 Jan;127(1):41-8. doi: 10.1080/00016480500488917.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16864490
Citation
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I. Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol. 2006 Sep;126(9):934-40. doi: 10.1080/00016480600606632.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15603395
Citation
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A. [New method of partial deafness treatment]. Otolaryngol Pol. 2004;58(4):811-6. Polish.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12709676
Citation
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A. A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit. 2003 Apr;9(4):CS20-4.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15724084
Citation
Kiefer J, Pok M, Adunka O, Sturzebecher E, Baumgartner W, Schmidt M, Tillein J, Ye Q, Gstoettner W. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol Neurootol. 2005 May-Jun;10(3):134-44. doi: 10.1159/000084023. Epub 2005 Feb 17.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15141755
Citation
Kiefer J, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W, Pok SM, Tillein J, Ye Q, von Ilberg C. Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 Apr;124(3):272-80. doi: 10.1080/00016480310000755a.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10545807
Citation
von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Pfenningdorff T, Hartmann R, Sturzebecher E, Klinke R. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1999 Nov-Dec;61(6):334-40. doi: 10.1159/000027695.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17063011
Citation
Gstoettner WK, Helbig S, Maier N, Kiefer J, Radeloff A, Adunka OF. Ipsilateral electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of long-term hearing preservation. Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11 Suppl 1:49-56. doi: 10.1159/000095614. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15224851
Citation
Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, Baumgartner WD, Pok S, Peters S, Adunka O. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 May;124(4):348-52. doi: 10.1080/00016480410016432.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19086194
Citation
Gstoettner WK, van de Heyning P, O'Connor AF, Morera C, Sainz M, Vermeire K, Mcdonald S, Cavalle L, Helbig S, Valdecasas JG, Anderson I, Adunka OF. Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2008 Sep;128(9):968-75. doi: 10.1080/00016480701805471.
Results Reference
result

Learn more about this trial

Safety and Effectiveness of the MED-EL Electric-Acoustic System

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs