Satisfaction with the Cochlear Implant of Pre- and Postlingually Deaf Adults

Author(s):  
S.H. Lee ◽  
C.S. Kim ◽  
H.N. Kim ◽  
L.S. Kim ◽  
M.J. Huh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
1997 ◽  
Vol 111 (11) ◽  
pp. 1008-1017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Jamal A. Makhdoum ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Paul van den Broek

AbstractThe field of cochlear implantation is developing rapidly. In subjects with bilateral profound deafness who gain no benefit from conventional hearing aids the aim of cochlear implantation is to provide a means for them to receive auditory sensations. Throughout the world, most cochlear implant centres are still continuing their research efforts to improve the results with this technique. Although it is still difficult to predict how an individual will perform with a cochlear implant, the success of cochlear implantation can no longer be denied. In this paper, we review some recent papers and reports, and the results of the various Nijmegen cochlear implant studies. Data about subject selection, examinations, surgery and the outcome are discussed. Our results were in good agreement with those of other authors. It can be concluded once again that cochlear implantation is an effective treatment for postlingually deaf adults and children, and for prelingually (congenital or acquired) deaf children with profound bilateral sensorineural deafness.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-282
Author(s):  
Maryam Salehomoum

Abstract Research examining the outcome of pediatric cochlear implantation consists of certain limitations, including the use of assessments that are often restricted to auditory-spoken skills, biased recruitment practices, and lack of consideration for identity development. To better understand the long-term outcome of implantation, it is vital to seek out individuals who decide to stop using their device and elicit feedback related to their decision. Thus, 11 adults, who were past cochlear implant (CI) users, were interviewed to gain insight into factors that had led to their decision regarding cochlear implant nonuse. Results indicated several variables to have played a role, but the most prominent factors were limitations in postimplant auditory perceptual development and development of a d/Deaf identity. Although cochlear implant practices and technology have improved over the past few decades, we need to recognize the continued variability in outcome to ensure the provision of the most accurate information and appropriate services.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (12) ◽  
pp. 816-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laure Jacquemin ◽  
Griet Mertens ◽  
Winfried Schlee ◽  
Paul Van de Heyning ◽  
Annick Gilles

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (03) ◽  
pp. 864-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul F. M. Krabbe ◽  
Johannes B. Hinderink ◽  
Paul van den Broek
Keyword(s):  

1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret W. Skinner ◽  
Laura K. Holden ◽  
Timothy A. Holden ◽  
Richard C. Dowell ◽  
Peter M. Seligman ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 520-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Carter ◽  
David Hailey

Objectives: To examine the economic efficiency of current cochlear implant technology under Australian conditions in profoundly deaf adults, partially deafened adults, and childrenMethods:> Cost—utility study, with weights based on judgments from persons experienced with the technology, and cost data from Australian sources.Results: Quality—of— improvements due to functional consequences of hearing improvement were greater than those due to amelioration of hearing disability. Costs in Australian dollars per QALY (15—year assessment) ranged from $5,070—$11,100 for children, $11,790—$38,150 for profoundly deaf adults, and $14,410—$41,000 for partially deaf adults.Conclusions: Results suggest cochlear implantation is acceptable value for money when compared with other health programs to which resources are committed in Australia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document