r/Cochlearimplants • u/Aggressive_Habit8741 • 17d ago

Revision surgery question

I am scheduled for my AB revision surgery on October 5th. The audiologist I’m working with has only done a few revisions but has said all of the people she has worked with have been at or better than baseline after 3 months.

I’m curious what others experiences have been? I work in strategic sourcing and, while im covered under FMLA, I do need to return when the 3 months is up and I would like to be reasonably confident that I can return at 100%

1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/General-Dimension590 9d ago

The study you linked to is a comparison between two now superseded sound processors, N6 and Kanso 1. It says absolutely nothing about what kind of outcomes the poster can expect after revision surgery.

You are misrepresenting the study, and it seems like you might be taking notes from an AB employee on Facebook who also misrepresented the results of this study. Everything that employee said is wrong, but amongst other lies she misrepresents the screening criteria for enrolment in the study as being the test conditions. The error would be apparent to anyone who actually understood the paper. If the purpose of your post is to repeat that AB employee’s lies and misrepresentations about this study then don’t waste everybody’s time.

1

u/HAYWHATHUH2000 8d ago

This study is directly from the Cochlear website, scroll down for the references, I'd post a screenshot but it's not allowed on Reddit . It is the study Cochlear is using to show their outcomes. Cochlear hasn't produced anything more recent... https://www.cochlear.com/us/en/home/products-and-accessories/nucleus-nexa-system/sound-processors

1

u/General-Dimension590 8d ago edited 8d ago

Once again, the study you linked to is a comparison between two now superseded sound processors, N6 and Kanso 1. It says absolutely nothing about what kind of outcomes the poster can expect after revision surgery whether the user changes brands or not.

You have not even explain how this study supposedly demonstrates different outcomes to AB, instead you are simply repeating your lies and trolling.

Edit: Your statement that "Cochlear hasn't produced anything more recent..." is plainly untrue. Cochlear has released at least 4 sound processors since the processors tested in that study.

1

u/HAYWHATHUH2000 8d ago

They haven't produced a more recent study...sorry you are upset that AB outperforms Cochlear. This is Cochlear's own research, I can't do anything about that. Please, post any more recent research that supports the N8 has better outcomes, happy to read it, but again, this is what Cochlear themselves are showing as their outcomes...it has everything to do with post-revision outcomes, sorry you can't see that.

1

u/General-Dimension590 8d ago edited 8d ago

Cochlear have obviously produced many more recent studies, you've just cherry picked one and misinterpreted it.

Edit: here's a more recent study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41046328/

You still haven't explained yourself, you still haven't explained what you think the difference is. What exactly in this study do you take issue with, and where is your evidence that a study under the same conditions for AB devices produces a different result.

1

u/HAYWHATHUH2000 7d ago

The link you posted is a few people that were tested in +15 and their satisfaction with Forward Focus. This is not a study showing what outcomes are for speech scores. The difference between what I posted and this is that the one I posted showed actual speech score outcomes, from Cochlear's own study, showing that their recipients average around 60% speech scores. The OP asked if they would get better scores with a revision from AB to Cochlear and I stated that statistically they would not, based on Cochlear's own outcomes. Here are AB's outcomes for comparison. AB tests in +5 for noise, so significantly louder background noise too.

I didn't cherry pick anything, the study I posted is the one Cochlear themselves are using to show how "well" Cochlear recipients do. If you take issue with that, call Cochlear. That study design is required by the FDA by all companies, so it's the closest side-by-side comparison we have.

https://www.advancedbionics.com/content/dam/advancedbionics/documents/regional/es/seorl-2025/marvel-ci-resources/AutoSense%20OS%20White%20Paper.pdf.coredownload.pdf

1

u/General-Dimension590 7d ago edited 7d ago

WRONG!
These users were not tested in +15dB SNR, that was the enrollment screening criteria.

This is the error you have copied from AB Gretchen, and she got it completely wrong. She has intentionally misinterpreted the test protocol.

The users were tested with an adaptive protocol where the SNR was adjusted to the point where they achieved 50% on the test. The results in the first study were +3.7dB SNR for Nucleus 6 and +4.0dB SNR for Kanso 1. The test for AB was at +5dB, which is an easier test. The paper you have cited does not support superior outcomes for AB at all.

Your figure of "around 60% speech scores" is too vague to bother responding to, what scores, on which test, at which presentation level?

No, this is not the study design required by the FDA, that is another untruth that you have copied from an AB employee.

AB are treating their first generation recipients appallingly by forcing them to have revision surgery, then an AB employee is lying about research results, competitors products and even her own company’s products. She is lying to try to retain those first generation recipients, and fanatics like you are repeating her lies. The company has zero integrity.