European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 3, pp 679–683 | Cite as

Bilateral cochlear implantation is regarded as very beneficial: results from a worldwide survey by online questionnaire

  • Kristen RakEmail author
  • Johannes Völker
  • Philipp Schendzielorz
  • Wafaa Shehata-Dieler
  • Andreas Radeloff
  • Rudolf Hagen



Bilateral cochlear implant (CI) provision is now widely regarded as the most beneficial hearing intervention for acceptable candidates. This study sought to determine if a number of well-regarded hearing professionals at highly reputable clinics shared similar practices and beliefs regarding bilateral CI provision, use, and rehabilitation in children and adults.


An 11-question online questionnaire was created and distributed to all 27 clinics in the HEARRING group. Questions 1–5 asked for facts; questions 6–11 asked for opinions.


20 completed questionnaires were returned. All 20 respondents reported that their clinics perform bilateral cochlear implantation in children; 18 do so in adults. Regarding the fact-based questions, bilateral CI provision is more commonly performed and more likely to be reimbursed in children than in adults. Children are also much more likely to be implanted simultaneously than are adults. Regarding the opinion-based questions, respondents gave broadly similar answers. Communication between the CIs and speech coding strategies specifically developed for bilateral CI users were regarded as the two future technologies that would most enhance the benefit of bilateral CI use.


Most clinics in the HEARRING group are very familiar with bilateral CI provision and hold similar opinions on its results and benefits. Hopefully the results described herein will lead to a greater acceptance and regular reimbursement of bilateral CI provision, especially in adults.


Bilateral cochlear implant Paediatric cochlear implant Sequential cochlear implant Simultaneous cochlear implant 



We would like to thank all the clinics who completed and returned the questionnaire. Michael Todd (MED-EL) provided medical writing services on a version of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The study is conducted by members of HEARRING, which is logistically supported by MED-EL. The authors have received research grants from MEDEL. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

405_2018_5271_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 83 KB)


  1. 1.
    Johnston JC, Durieux-Smith A, Angus D, O’Connor A, Fitzpatrick E (2009) Bilateral paediatric cochlear implants: a critical review. Int J Audiol 48:601–617. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eapen RJ, Buchman CA (2009) Bilateral cochlear implantation: current concepts. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 17:351–355. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Schoonhoven J, Sparreboom M, van Zanten BG, Scholten RJ, Mylanus EA, Dreschler WA, Grolman W (2013) The effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants for severe-to-profound deafness in adults: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol 34:190–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    von Zon A, Smulders YE, Stegeman I et al (2016) Stable benefits of bilateral over unilateral cochlear implantation after two years: a randomized controlled trial. Laryngoscope 127:1161–1168. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kraaijenga VJC, Ramakers GGJ, Smulders YE et al (2017) Objective and subjective measures of simultaneous vs sequential bilateral cochlear implants in adults a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 143:881–890. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bianchin G, Tribi L, Formigoni P, Russo C, Polizzi V (2017) Sequential pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation: The effect of time interval between implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinol 102:10–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lammers MJ, van der Heijden GJ, Pourier VE, Grolman W (2014) Bilateral cochlear implantation in children: a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis. Laryngoscope 124:1694–1699. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balkany T, Hodges A, Telischi F et al (2008) William House Cochlear Implant Study Group: position statement on bilateral cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 29:107–108. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Craddock L, Brinton J, Saeed SR, Balkany TJ (2008) Editorial. Bilateral cochlear implantation: the British Cochlear Implant Group position. Cochlear Implants Int 9:65–69. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schramm D (2010) Canadian position statement on bilateral cochlear implantation. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 39:479–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Papsin BC, Gordon KA (2008) Bilateral cochlear implants should be the standard for children with bilateral sensorineural deafness. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 16:69–74. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramsden J, Gordon K, Aschendorff A et al (2012) European bilateral pediatric cochlear implant forum consensus statement. Otol Neurotol 33:561–565. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    British Cochlear Implant Group (2016) Quality standards. Cochlear implant services for children and adults.
  14. 14.
    Cullington HE, Bele D, Brinton JC et al (2016) United Kingdom national paediatric bilateral project: Demographics and results of localization and speech perception testing. Cochlear Implants Int 18:2–22. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    NICE (2009) NICE technology appraisal guidance 166. Cochlear implants for children and adults with severe to profound deafness: National Health Service National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park HJ, Lee JY, Yang CJ et al (2018) What is the sensitive period to initiate auditory stimulation for the second ear in sequential cochlear implantation? Otol Neurotol 39:177–183. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dhondt CMC, Swinnen FKR, Dhooge IJM (2018) Bilateral cochlear implantation or bimodal listening in the paediatric population: retrospective analysis of decisive criteria. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 104:170–177. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    HEARRING (2014) The HEARRING Mission Statement. Accessed: 29-Jan-2018
  19. 19.
    Radeloff A, Neckel M, Shehata-Dieler W et al (2017) 20 years of bilateral cochlear implantation—an analysis of the implanted patients. Laryngorhinootologie 96:35–39. (Article in German)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asp F, Mäki-Torkko E, Karltop E et al (2012) Bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implants in children: speech recognition, sound localization, and parental reports. Int J Audiol 51:817–832. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grossmann W, Brill S, Moeltner A, Mlynski R, Hagen R, Radeloff A (2016) Cochlear implantation improves spatial release from masking and restores localization abilities in single-sided deaf patients. Otol Neurotol 37:658–664. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery and the Comprehensive Hearing CenterUniversity of WuerzburgWuerzburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations