A Lifetime Commitment to Hearing: MED-EL’s Unmatched Backwards Compatibility

The world of hearing technology is constantly improving and reimagining the possibilities available to people living with hearing loss. When considering a hearing implant, it’s important that the decision is made with the future in mind. This is true both when thinking about the benefits of improving one’s hearing now—emotionally, socially, and physically—but also understanding that when technology shifts, the implant should be able to adapt alongside it. At MED-EL, we are committed to providing your patients with the latest and best innovations in hearing health for your lifetime. All of our devices are designed to be backwards compatible, so when the tech changes, no one is left behind.

Our lifetime commitment to hearing begins with the implant. All of our latest-generation titanium implants have an overall cumulative survival rate of over 99%—reliability performance that no other cochlear implant manufacturer has achieved.^[1][2][3] Every single MED-EL implant is produced at our global headquarters in Austria, and it has been that way for more than 25 years. With our cutting-edge processes, superior components, and exceptional quality control, it’s no coincidence that every MED-EL cochlear implant meets the highest standards for quality, safety, and reliability. Our products are made to last, so your patients don’t have to worry.

Next, our implants are made to preserve the hearing your patients still have so they’re always future ready. Keeping the cochlea’s structures and natural processes intact is important not only because of an implant’s performance today, but it may also enable your patients to benefit from future technologies. ^{[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} Our competitors often use stiff electrode arrays that are far more likely to cause damage to the cochlear membranes, which can result in loss of residual hearing.^{[13][14][15][16][17]} Unlike those arrays, MED-EL’s electrode arrays are flexible. This allows them to be inserted into the cochlea without harming those delicate structures. We can’t predict the future, but we can prepare for it. By giving your patients the best chance to preserve their residual hearing, they won’t have to compromise on the closest to natural hearing today or in the years to come.

Finally, all of our external audio processors have been backwards compatible with our internal implants for more than 25 years. This means that your patients won’t be excluded from the most recent external innovations just because their internal device was implanted before they existed. We know that the technology of today will not necessarily be the technology of tomorrow, and we’re prepared for the unpredictable nature of this advancement. A lifetime commitment means when your patient chooses MED-EL for their cochlear implant, you can trust that we will continue to support them for the years that come.

[1] – Advanced Bionics AG and affiliates. (2025). Reliability Report July 2025 IMPLANTABLE COCHLEAR STIMULATORS AND SOUND PROCESSORS. 028-Q048-02 Rev G
[2] – Cochlear Ltd. (2025). Cochlear Nucleus System Reliability Report – Volume 23 | December 2024, D2325238-V1 2025-03.
[3] – MED-EL. (2026). MED-EL Cochlear Implant Systems Reliability Report April 2026. All registered and currently marketed implants are included in the reliability calculations, and every explanted and returned implant is subject to systematic failure analysis. All failures are classified and Cumulative Survival Rates (CSR) are calculated in accordance with ISO 5841-2:2014. All confirmed device malfunctions including accident-related failures are considered for reporting. Failures traced back to induced malfunctions are not included in the reported data in compliance with the ISO standard. The results of the calculations are reported following principles of the European Consensus on Cochlear Implant Failures and Explantations, with adults and children being shown separately and with 95% confidence intervals. Please be aware that confidence intervals smaller than 0.1% may not be clearly visible in the graphs. The sample size of each model and population are not provided. MED-EL publishes reliability data one year after the first implantation at the earliest.
[6] – Gabrielpillai, J., Burck, I., Baumann, U., Stoever, T., Helbig, S. (2018) Incidence for Tip Foldover During Cochlear Implantation. Otology Neurotology, 39(9): 1115–1121.
[7] – Zuniga MG, Rivas A, Hedley-Williams A, Gifford RH, Dwyer R, Dawant BM, Sunderhaus LW, Hovis KL, Wanna GB, Noble JH, Labadie RF. Tip fold-over in cochlear implantation: Case series. Otol Neurotol; 2016. 38(2):199-206
[8] – Lang, C.P., Salcher, R., Timm, M., Teschner, M,. Lenarz, T. (2018) Tip Fold-over with the Slim Modiolar electrode (CI 532), a retrospective case series. Laryngo-RhineOtol. 97(S 02): S211
[9] – O’Connell, B.P., Hunter, J.B., & Wanna, G.B., (2016). The importance of electrode location in cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 1: 169–174.
[10] – Wanna, G.B., Noble, J.H., Carlson, M.L., Gifford, R.H., Dietrich, M.S., Haynes, D.S., Dawant, B.M., & Labadie, R.F. (2014). Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope. 124(6):1–7.
[11] – O’Connell, B.P., Cakir, A., Hunter, J.B., Francis, D.O., Noble, J.H., Labadie, R.F., Zuniga, G., Dawant, B.M., Rivas, A., & Wanna, G.B. (2016). Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 37(8):1016–1023.
[12] – Boyer, E., Karkas, A., Attye, A., Lefournier, V., Escude, B., & Schmerber, S. (2015) Scalar localization by cone-beam computed tomography of cochlear implant carriers: A comparative study between straight and periomodiolar precurved electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol. 36(3):422–429.
[13] – Suhling, M., Majdani, O., Salcher, R., Leifholz, M., Büchner, A., Lesinski-Schiedat, A., & Lenarz, T. (2016). The Impact of Electrode Array Length on Hearing Preservation in Cochlear Implantation. Otology & Neurotology, 37(8), 1006-1015. doi: 10.1097/mao.0000000000001110
[14] – Helbig, S., Adel, Y., Rader, T., Stoever, T., & Baumann, U. (2016). Long-term hearing preservation outcomes after cochlear implantation for electricacoustic stimulation. Otol Neurotol. 37(9).
[15] – O’Connell, B., Hunter, J., Haynes, D., Holder, J., Dedmon, M., & Noble, J. et al. (2017). Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. The Laryngoscope, 127(10), 2352-2357. doi:12.1002/lary.26467
[16] – Skarzynski, P., Skarzynski, H., Dziendziel, B., Rajchel, J., Gos, E., & Lorens, A. (2019). Hearing Preservation With the Use of Flex20 and Flex24 Electrodes in Patients With Partial Deafness. Otology & Neurotology, 40(9), 1153-1159. doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000002357
[17] – Sprinzl, G., Schoerg, P., Edlinger, S., & Magele, A. (2020). Long-term Hearing Preservation in Electric Acoustic Cochlear Implant Candidates. Otology & Neurotology, 41(6), 750-757. doi: 10.1097/mao.0000000000002627
[18] – Pillsbury, H. C., 3rd, Dillon, M. T., Buchman, C. A., Staecker, H., Prentiss, S. M., Ruckenstein, M. J., Bigelow, D. C., Telischi, F. F., Martinez, D. M., Runge, C. L., Friedland, D. R., Blevins, N. H., Larky, J. B., Alexiades, G., Kaylie, D. M., Roland, P. S., Miyamoto, R. T., Backous, D. D., Warren, F. M., El-Kashlan, H. K., … Adunka, O. F. (2018). Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults: Final Outcomes. Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 39(3), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001691