Cochlear implantation in patients with substantial residual hearing

Laryngoscope

Volumn 114, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 2218-2223

  Cullen, Robert D ^a   Higgins, Carol ^a   Buss, Emily ^a   Clark, Marcia ^a   Pillsbury III, Harold C ^a   Buchman, Craig A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Residual hearing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIOLOGY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEARING AID; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; NOISE; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 10044277217     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000149462.88327.7f     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Cohen NL, Waltzman SB, Fisher SG. A prospective, randomized study of cochlear implants. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cochlear Implant Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993;328:233-237.
2. David EE, Ostroff JM, Shipp D, et al. Speech coding strategies and revised cochlear implant candidacy, an analysis of post-implant performance. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:228-233.
3. Gomaa NA, Rubinstein JT, Lowder MW, et al. Residual speech perception and cochlear implant performance in postlingually deafened adults. Ear Hear 2003;24:539-544.
4. Battmer RD, Gupta SP, Allum-Mecklenburg DJ, Lenarz T. Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:185-187.
5. Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:582-589.
6. Nadol JB Jr, Young YS, Glynn RJ. Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98:411-416.
7. Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999;20:445-452.
8. Parkin JL, Stewart BE, Dankowski K, Haas LJ. Prognosticating speech performance in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;101:314-319.
9. Shea JJ III, Domico EH, Orchik DJ. Speech recognition ability as a function of duration of deafness in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Laryngoscope 1990;100:223-226.
10. van Dijk JE, van Olphen AF, Langereis MC, et al. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 1999;38:109-116.
11. Luxford WM. Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124:125-126.
12. Gantz BJ, Turner CW. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1726-1730.
13. Linthicum FH Jr, Fayad J, Otto SR, et al. Cochlear implant histopathology. Am J Otol 1991;12:245-311.
14. Barbara M, Mattioni A, Monini S, et al. Delayed loss of residual hearing in Clarion cochlear implant users. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:850-853.
15. Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, et al. Multivariate predictors of success with cochlear implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1993;48:153-167.