Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in the elderly: Manchester experience over 13 years

Clinical Otolaryngology

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 116-122

  Orabi, A A ^a   Mawman, D ^b   Al Zoubi, F ^a   Saeed, S R ^a   Ramsden, R T ^a  

^a MANCHESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; AUDIOLOGY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE SEVERITY; EMOTION; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; FEVER; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; GLASGOW BENEFIT INVENTORY; GLASGOW HEALTH STATUS INVENTORY QUESTIONNAIRE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL ASPECT;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33645325420     PISSN: 17494478     EISSN: 17494486     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01156.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Office for National Statistics 2003 ). Available at: http://www. statistics.gov.uk q4
2. Labadie R.F. Carrasco V.N. Gilmer C.H. et al. 2000 Cochlear implant performance in senior citizens. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 123 419 423
3. Karinen P.J. Sorri M.J. Valimaa T.T. et al. 2001 Cochlear implant patients and quality of life. Scand Audiol. 30 Suppl. 52 48 50
4. Buchman C.A. Fucci M.J. Luxford W.M. 1999 Cochlear implants in the geriatric population: benefits outweigh risks. Ear Nose Throat J. 78 489 494
5. Shin Y.J. Fraysse B. Deguine O. et al. 2000 Benefits of cochlear implant in elderly patients. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 122 602 606
6. Wyatt J.R. Niparko J.K. Rothman M. et al. 1996 Cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant in 258 profoundly deaf individuals. Laryngoscope 106 816 821
7. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group 2004 Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implant in postlingually deafened adults I: theory and measures of effectiveness. Ear Hear. 25 310 335
8. Francis H.W. Chee N. Yeagle J. et al. 2002 Impact of cochlear implants on the functional health status of older adults. Laryngoscope 112 1482 1488
9. Bench J. Kowal A. Bamford J. 1979 The BKB sentence lists for partially hearing children. Br. J. Audiol. 13 108 112
10. Boothroyd A. 1968 Developments in speech audiometry. Sound 2 3 10
11. Aleksy W. Boyle P. 1994 An Audio-visual Recording of the CUNY Sentence Lists on Laser-disc. Cochlear Implant Program: Internal Report. University College Hospital London q5
12. Mawman D. Greenham P. Driscol M. et al. 2002 Nucleus UK Bilateral Study. Presented at BCIG Southampton
13. Institute of Hearing Research 1998 The Glasgow Health Status Questionnaires Manual. Available at: http://www.ihr.mrc.ac.uk
14. Waltzman S.B. Cohen N.L. Shapiro W.H. 1993 The benefits of cochlear implant in the geriatric population. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 108 329 333
15. Kelsall D.C. Shallop J.K. Burnelli T. 1995 cochlear implant in the elderly. Am. J. Otol. 16 609 615
16. Chatelin V. Kim E.J. Colin D. et al. 2004 Cochlear implant coutcomes in the elderly. Otol. Neurotol. 25 298 301
17. Tari S. Dowell R.C. Enticott J.C. 2003 Outcomes for older patients using the nucleus cochlear implant. Hear Now and Always. White paper. Cochlear Ltd Lane Cove, Australiaq6
18. Bouccara D. Ambert-Dahan E. Herelle-Dupuy E. et al 2002 Benefit of cochlear implant in the elderly. In Poster Presented At 7th International Cochlear Implant Conference, Manchester
19. Djalilian H.R. King T.A. Smith S.L. et al. 2002 cochlear implant in the elderly: results and quality-of-life assessment. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 111 890 895
20. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group 2004 Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implant in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear. 25 336 360