Jared Evans Global Microbrand

You have no idea and you don't know how they feel! I've talked to deaf/ hh people about it, just don't bother to reply back.

Sometimes cochlear implants doesn't help much for those people have low hearing and some only would hear strange sounds but some does not make any difference in between "before" and "after", that would be such tragic by wasting money and health insurance's too. Why can't we just stick with hearing aids instead of cochlear implants so that way it's natural instead of having major surgery that cost fortune. That way when they have lost their hearing when it dies then they no longer need the hearing aids instead of going thru the surgery again to remove the battery, that's too much hassle. STICK WITH YOUR NATURAL BIRTH & BE HAPPY!! BE THE WAY YOU ARE BORN TO BE & BE YOURSELF!

Thanks everyone for the comments. I went out of town for a short vacation and was unable to respond to the comments until now.

It's obvious by now that I'm behind on the recent development work on cochlear implants. I remember a few years ago, I was told by others that the implanting surgery would damage the cochlear to an extent where the hair cells would be destroyed. At the time, it was also highly recommended that if a prospective CI candidate had residual hearing, it would be unethical of the doctor to recommend a CI since the residual hearing would be lost after the surgery.

I appreciate all of your comments to clarify the current state of CI technology and surgical procedures. This is a great thing having my blog on an aggregator- taking advantage of the self-correcting behavior from a swarm of Internet visitors. I typed this post out of a concern for prospective CI candidates since they may be missing out on a more natural solution to the loss of hearing.

I still stand by my belief that CIs are not the magic wand that many people make them out to be and that they are not necessary for a deaf person to have a good quality of life. It all depends on acceptance and the attitude.

Hi Jared, I get what you are saying: we had that very same concern when weighing the risks and benefits of getting a second cochlear implant for our 2 year old.

We've seen her go through the first surgery with ease, and within a year, she developed spoken language and the ability to recognize all kinds of sounds (speech, music, environmental sounds), so we have first hand experience with how amazing cochlear implants can be for some people (not all, of course!), but we thought 1. it's surgery and all that entails, and 2. technology is moving fast, perhaps we could wait a few years until there's less invasive surgery and more advanced technology for the electrode array inside the head.

So we did a lot of research into future technologies, and found that nerve cell regen. that would provide the same level of hearing as current CI surgery is at least 30 years away. Our surgeon has been directly involved in nerve cell regeneration research for 12 years, and he explained that even if the first human trials were available within 10 years, it would be relatively primitive and would provide far less benefit than today's cochlear implants. Also, the most technologically complex part of a CI--the processor-- is outside the head, and sits behind the ear. And that can be upgraded nearly as easily as ordering a book from amazon.com.

Surgical methods will likely improve within 10 years, but for our daughter, those will be 10 critical years during which she'll develop her language comprehension (both in ASL and spoken English), and bilateral implants will provide an easier route (better hearing in loud environments, like classrooms and restaurants). And while I've heard that some lose their residual hearing, especially with the older CIs, our daughter has retained her residual hearing after the surgery and so no doors to future technology have been closed. So we went for stereo just last week, and we definitely remain hopeful that she'll benefit from future technology in 20, 30 years.

We know that she isn't hearing the way hearing people hear: she's deaf, and hearing with a cochlear implant is very different, not anything near as rich an experience as what the body can do on its own. But just because I can't listen to music performed live by the Vienna Philharmonic doesn't mean I don't benefit from or enjoy listening to Mozart on a CD. Seeing the Sistine Chapel in person is very different from viewing an image, but just because you may not be able to travel the world that doesn't make viewing great works of art online or in books not worthwhile.

Jared's question is still valid because many deaf people still have had their residual cilia ruined by the older cochlear implants. It is actually an excellent question, in my opinion.

I would suggest you doing homework before you make claims like that. Raychelle and Mishakena said it all. I still had some residual hearing after my implant surgery.

Wait a min...... what about those poor people have headaches from the cochlear implants??? They said it works ok for a few years and they get headache frequently, some get tired of taking medications and one guy who was forced to have cochlear implants and it detoriates his health with headaches and taking pain pills ... after it's been removed. His health came back to regular, no more headaches!! To me, I was being told not to take it because of my hearing with hearing aids is good enough. Dr. said I would loose my normal hearing within a year if I had the cochlear implaints! I'm not going to stick with the cochlear implants cuz I kept hearing people kept on having horrid headaches, it might harm us. I'd rather to have natural the way we were born to be! : )

As a bilateral cochlear implant users, I still have some residual hearing. As Raychelle states the newer technology does not damage the cochlear. As for gene therapy, I hope it works wonders. As for me, I don't want to wait years when I can have my implants now. I have been hearing about gene therapy for so long and nothing has come of it.

Jared,

Bravo! I personally have NO PROBLEM with the genetic therapy of restoring hair cells for the hearing ability with any individuals, who are hearing loss.

I am much oppose to the idea of gruesome approach to the problem-solving of hearing loss among anyone like cochlear implants. Everything go with the CI is not practical or cost-effective ever logical.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OUR DEAF CULTURE AND EXISTENCE?? I would not worry at all, because we are only the remaining "unique" human group in the entire world history within our contributions more than anyone else.

Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog

Jared, I think you mean the cilia inside the cochlear, not the cochlear part itself. Yes, in the older days, the remaining cilia were destroyed in the process. However the cochlea itself remain intact. I was informed that the new wires are thinner and more flexible, just like what Raychelle said, and the damages are supposed to be minimal at least, if not no damage.

So the people using older c.i. can still benefit from this regeneration of cochlear cilia as their cochleas are intact. The therapy will also replace the cilia damaged by the cochlear implants.

FYI, Jared, that's old information - the wire that goes through the cochlea used to be thicker and more firm, yes, it destroyed the hair in the cochlea in the past (and usually one cochlea, not both, so those with one CI still have one more cochlea to experiment with like you seem to suggest :)).

But nowdays the wire is much thinner and pliable, destroying little or no hair in the cochlea. Patients in the last few years have reported the same dB before and after surgery (without wearing the CI), so "total destruction" of the hair in the cochlea is a thing of the past.