Hearing in patients operated unilaterally for otosclerosis. Self- assessment of hearing and audiometric results

Acta Oto-Laryngologica

Volumn 119, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 453-458

  Lundman, Lars ^a   Mendel, Lennart ^a   Bagger Sjöbäck, Dan ^a   Rosenhall, Ulf ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Complications; Patient assessment; Quality of life; Sound distortion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OTOSCLEROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TINNITUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTIGO;

AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; BONE CONDUCTION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEARING LOSS; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OTOSCLEROSIS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; STAPES SURGERY; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0032766192     PISSN: 00016489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00016489950180982     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. 1. Browning GG, Gatehouse S, Swan IRC. The Glasgow benefit plot: a new method for reporting benefits from middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope 1991; 101: 180-5.
2. 2. Cremers CWR, Beusen JMH, Huygen PLM. Hearing gain after stapedotomy, partial platinectomy, or stapedectomy for otosclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 959-72.
3. 3. Kürsten R, Schneider B, Zrunek M. Long-term results after stapedectomy versus stapedotomy. Am J Otol 1994; 15: 804-6.
4. 4. Somers T, Marquet T, Govaerts P, Offeciers E. Statistical analysis of otosclerotic surgery performed by Jean Marquet. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1994; 103: 945-51.
5. 5. Pirodda E, Modugno GC, Buccolieri M. The problem of the sensorineural component in otosclerotic hearing loss: a comparison between operated and non-operated ears. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1995; 115: 427-32.
6. 6. Ramsay H, Kärkkäinen J, Palva T. Success in surgery for otosclerosis: hearing improvement and other indicators. Am J Otolaryngol 1997; 18: 23-8.
7. 7. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium Guidelines for Evaluation of Results of Treatment of Conductive Hearing Loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 113: 186-7.
8. 8. Berliner KI, Doyle KJ, Goldenberg RA. Reporting operative hearing results in stapes surgery: does choice of outcome measure make a difference? Am J Otolaryngol 1996; 17: 521-8.
9. 9. Silverstein H, Bendet E, Rosenberg S, et al. Revision stapes surgery with and without laser: a comparison. Laryngoscope 1994; 104: 1431-8.
10. 10. Eriksson-Mangold M, Erlandsson SI, Jansson G. The subjective meaning of illness in severe otosclerosis: a descriptive study in three steps based on focus group interviews and written questionnaire. Scand Audiol 1996; 25(Suppl 43): 34-44.
11. 11. Smythe GDL, Pattersson CC. Results of middle ear reconstruction. Do patients and surgeons agree? Am J Otol 1985; 6: 276-9.
12. 12. Smyth GDL, Hassard TH. Hearing aids post-stapedectomy: incidence and timing. Laryngoscope 1986; 96: 385-8.
13. 13. Doyle PJ, Spafford P. Stapes surgery: subjective and objective results revisited. J Otolaryngol 1993; 22: 200-3.
14. 14. Doyle PJ, Woodham J. Results of stapes surgery-subjective and objective. J Otolaryngol 1980; 9: 381-6.
15. 15. Ginsberg IA, Hoffman SR, Stinziano GD. White TP. Stapedectomy in-depth analysis of 2405 cases. Laryngoscope 1978; 88: 1999-2016.