Acta oto-laryngologica · 2016
Patient satisfaction after auditory implant surgery: ten-year experience from a single implanting unit center.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Monini Simonetta, Bianchi Alessandra, Talamonti Rita, Atturo Francesca, Filippi Chiara, Barbara Maurizio
Аннотация
CONCLUSIONS: The satisfaction rate of the subjects with an auditory implant appears strictly related to the resulting auditory improvement, and the surgical variables would play a prevailing role in respect to the esthetic factors.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the rate of satisfaction in subjects who underwent the surgical application of an auditory device at a single Implanting Center Unit.
METHOD: A series of validated questionnaires has been administered to subjects who underwent the surgical application of different auditory devices. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) have been used to compare the implanted situation with the hearing-aided one; a percutaneous bone conductive implant (pBCI) with an active middle ear implant (AMEI) on the round window in mixed hearing loss; and an invisible, fully-implantable device with a frankly and bulky semi-implantable device.
RESULTS: The mean GBI scores were higher in Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB)® and Bonebridge® subjects, without significant differences among the various devices. The mean VAS score increased for all the devices in comparison with the conventional hearing aid. The mean APHAB score was similarly better in the implanted condition as total and partial scores.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the rate of satisfaction in subjects who underwent the surgical application of an auditory device at a single Implanting Center Unit.
METHOD: A series of validated questionnaires has been administered to subjects who underwent the surgical application of different auditory devices. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) have been used to compare the implanted situation with the hearing-aided one; a percutaneous bone conductive implant (pBCI) with an active middle ear implant (AMEI) on the round window in mixed hearing loss; and an invisible, fully-implantable device with a frankly and bulky semi-implantable device.
RESULTS: The mean GBI scores were higher in Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB)® and Bonebridge® subjects, without significant differences among the various devices. The mean VAS score increased for all the devices in comparison with the conventional hearing aid. The mean APHAB score was similarly better in the implanted condition as total and partial scores.