ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES EXPECTED AND REPORTED BY COCHLEAR IMPLANT PATIENTS

Authors
Citation
Rs. Tyler, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES EXPECTED AND REPORTED BY COCHLEAR IMPLANT PATIENTS, The American journal of otology, 15(4), 1994, pp. 523-531
Citations number
35
Categorie Soggetti
Otorhinolaryngology
ISSN journal
01929763
Volume
15
Issue
4
Year of publication
1994
Pages
523 - 531
Database
ISI
SICI code
0192-9763(1994)15:4<523:AADEAR>2.0.ZU;2-R
Abstract
An open-ended questionnaire was administered to 20 patients using the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant and 21 patients using the Inerai d multichannel cochlear implant. Before surgery, they were asked to li st the advantages and disadvantages that they expected from their coch lear implant. Advantages were expected in the categories of: (1) speec h perception when speechreading can be used (65%); (2) environmental s ound perception (58%); (3) psychological effects (14%); (4) speech per ception when speechreading cannot be used (49%); (5) lifestyle and soc ial effects (42%); and (6) speech production (5%). Disadvantages were expected in: (1) equipment malfunction (42%); (2) environmental sound perception (28%); (3) speech perception when speechreading can be used (7%); (4) psychological effects (24%); (5) speech perception when spe echreading is not used (7%); and (6) lifestyle and social effects (7%) . Concerns were also raised about the risk of surgery (9%). After seve ral months (4-60 mo) of using their implant, patients were asked to li st the advantages and disadvantages that they actually experienced. Ad vantages were reported in the categories of: (1) speech perception whe n speechreading can be used (86%); (2) environmental sound perception (79%); (3) psychological effects (49%); (4) speech perception when spe echreading cannot be used (56%); (5) lifestyle and social effects (40% ); (6) speech production (14%); and (7) the reduction of tinnitus (7%) . Disadvantages were reported in: (1) equipment malfunction (54%); (2) environmental sound perception (53%); (3) speech perception when spee chreading can be used (26%); (4) psychological effects (12%); (5) spee ch perception when speechreading is not used (21%); and (6) lifestyle and social effects (9%). Concerns were also noted about the cost of su rgery (14%). Thirty patients had tinnitus preoperatively. Without hear ing sound through the implant, 70 percent of these indicated that the cochlear implant had a positive effect on their tinnitus. When listeni ng to speech through the implant, 83 percent reported that their tinni tus was reduced.