NYU School of Medicine Evaluation of the Kanso Sound Processor: Clinical Trial Results
William Shapiro, AuD, CCC-A
Disclosures • Audiology Advisory Board- Cochlear Corporation
• IDE study sponsored by Cochlear Americas
1. Able to describe Australian clinical study speech outcomes 2. How does hearing performance with Kanso compare to that
with a BTE processor? 3. Able to describe US and Australian qualitative outcomes with
regard retention, comfort and discretion
Goals for presentation
KANSO Overview
Dual microphones
KEY TECHNOLOGIES: • Dual microphones • SmartSound® iQ with
SCAN • Wireless technology
capability • Cable free, single unit with
one button
Disclaimer: The Nucleus Kanso Sound Processor is not approved for use in all countries. Please speak to your Cochlear representative for more information.
Mumbai
New Delhi
Kozhikode
Sydney
New York
Oklahoma
Denver
100 recipients across 8 sites involved in global clinical evaluations
Kanso clinical experience
1. How does hearing performance with Kanso compare to that with a BTE processor?
2. How satisfied are Kanso users with retention, comfort and discreetness?
Research questions
• Upgrade study with take-home experience • 20 adult subjects
• Objective: To evaluate acceptance of the Kanso processor by experienced users of a BTE processor
• 2 phases
• Measures: – Speech performance testing in quiet and noise
– Subject questionnaire including comfort, retention, subjective performance and battery life ratings
Australian adult study
• Upgrade study with take-home experience • 30 adult subjects
• 2 study visits • 3 centers
– NYU Langone Medical Center
– Rocky Mountain Ear Center
– Hearts for Hearing
• Objective: To evaluate acceptance of the Kanso processor by experienced users of a BTE processor
United States adult study
• Average age at study enrollment: 57.1years (range 32-85 years)
• Gender: 10 males, 10 females
Study demographics Australian study US study
• Average age at study enrollment: 52.8 years (range 15-82 years)
• Average age at implantation: 47.2 years (range 5-78 years)
• Additional demographics: – Average duration of device use: 5.7 years (3
months-15 years)
– Gender: 17 males, 13 females
Microphone directionality with Kanso
Sounds from the front, overall sensitivity, and the standard frequency response of Kanso matches closely with a BTE (Nucleus 6)
• For noisy conditions, zoom directionality is optimized for OTE placement
• This produces variations in microphone sensitivity patterns between devices
Zoom directionality
Kanso performance is similar to Nucleus 6 in quiet and noise1
Kanso performance
CNC words | 50 dB SPL | N=20
Target Speech
4TB | 65 dB SPL | S0N0 | N=20
Target Speech & Noise
1. Mauger SJ, Jones M, Nel E, Del Dot J. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor. Int J Audiol. Published online 09 Jan 2017
Overall hearing performance
AUS study N=20 US study N=30
76%
Speech in noise
AUS study N=20 US study N=30
80%
Qualitative data-Subject hearing performance
Same or better rating than BTE processor
N=23 N=22
N=16 N=17
Qualitative data-Retention and discretion Same or better rating than BTE processor
Retention
AUS study N=20 US study N=30
62%
Discretion
AUS study N=20 US study N=30
86% N=27
N=16
N=20
N=11
rated the look and feel of Kanso to be the same or better than their BTE
rated comfort with Kanso the same or better than their BTE sound processor
88%
90%
Kanso user survey feedback
• Speech outcomes are similar between Kanso and BTE processors in co-located noise
• Qualitative data indicates the same or better rating for Kanso with regard to comfort, discretion, hearing performance and retention.
Summary
16
1. Mauger SJ, Jones M, Nel E, Del Dot J. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor. International Journal of audiology.2017 Jan 9:1.
2. Comfort and Listening Benefits of the Kanso Off-The-Ear Sound Processor in Children. Phillips B., Plasmans A., & Dhooge I. Cochlear White Paper 2016. D1110229 ISS1 NOV16.
References
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Rocky Mountain Ear Center and Hearts for Hearing
NYU School of Medicine 18
NYU Cochlear Implant Center • Co-Directors of the Cochlear Implant Center • J. Thomas Roland Jr., M.D. • Susan Waltzman, Ph.D.
• Surgeons • J. Thomas Roland Jr., M.D. • Daniel Jethanamest, M.D. • David Friedmann, M.D. • Sean McMenomey, M.D. • Baishakhi Choudhury, M.D. -Fellow
• Cochlear Implant Audiologists • William Shapiro, Au.D. –Supervisor • Betsy Bromberg, M.A. • Catherine Flynn, AuD • Janet Green, Au.D. • Laurel Mahoney, Au.D. • Alison Rigby, Au.D. • KaitlynTona, Au.D. • Lavin Entwisle- audiology intern
• Educational Coordinator • Rose Drous, M.Ed., Cert AVT
• Speech Language Pathologist • Sara Toline, M.A.
• Research • Mario Svirsky, Ph.D. • Susan Waltzman, Ph.D. • Arlene Neuman, Ph.D. • David Landsberger, Ph.D. • Elad Sagi, Ph.D. • Mahan Avadpour, Ph.D. • Monica Padilla-Velez, Ph.D. • Annette Zeman, Au.D. • Natalia Stupak, Au.D. • Ann Todd, PhD • Roozbeh Soleymani • Jonathan Neukam
• Patients
MAXIMIZING PERFORMANCE IN COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS – PROGRAMMING CONCEPTS
Course Registration:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/maximizing-performance-in-cochlear-implant-recipients-programming-concepts-iii-tickets-36210064277
SAVE THE DATE December 3-4, 2017
New York, NY
Thank You