Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSavaş, Veysel
dc.contributor.authorGündüz, Bülent
dc.contributor.authorKaramert, Recep
dc.contributor.authorCevizci, Raşit
dc.contributor.authorDüzlü, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorTutar, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorBayazit, Yıldırım Ahmet
dc.date.accessioned10.07.201910:49:13
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-10T19:58:29Z
dc.date.available10.07.201910:49:13
dc.date.available2019-07-10T19:58:29Z
dc.date.issued2016en_US
dc.identifier.citationSavaş, V., Gündüz, B., Karamert, R., Cevizci, R., Düzlü, M., Tutar, H. ... Bayazit, Y. A. (2016). Comparison of carina active middle-ear implant with conventional hearing aids for mixed hearing loss. Journal Of Laryngology And Otology, 130(4), 340-343. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215116000748en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-2151
dc.identifier.issn1748-5460
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215116000748
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/3178
dc.descriptionWOS: 000373127800005en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 26991874en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the auditory outcomes of Carina middle-ear implants with those of conventional hearing aids in patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss. Methods: The study comprised nine patients (six males, three females) who underwent middle-ear implantation with Carina fully implantable active middle-ear implants to treat bilateral moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss. The patients initially used conventional hearing aids and subsequently received the Carina implants. The hearing thresholds with implants and hearing aids were compared. Results: There were no significant differences between: the pre-operative and post-operative air and bone conduction thresholds (p > 0.05), the thresholds with hearing aids and Carina implants (p > 0.05), or the pre-operative (mean, 72.8 +/- 19 per cent) and post-operative (mean, 69.9 +/- 24 per cent) speech discrimination scores (p > 0.05). One of the patients suffered total sensorineural hearing loss three months following implantation despite an initial 38 dB functional gain. All except one patient showed clinical improvements after implantation according to quality of life questionnaire (Glasgow Benefit Inventory) scores. Conclusion: Acceptance of Carina implants is better than with conventional hearing aids in patients with mixed hearing loss, although both yield similar hearing amplification. Cosmetic reasons appear to be critical for patient acceptance.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherCambridge Univ Pressen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectMiddle Ear Implanten_US
dc.subjectHearing Aidsen_US
dc.subjectMixed Hearing Lossen_US
dc.titleComparison of Carina active middle-ear implant with conventional hearing aids for mixed hearing lossen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalJournal Of Laryngology And Otologyen_US
dc.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.authorid0000-0002-3887-4569en_US
dc.identifier.volume130en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage340en_US
dc.identifier.endpage343en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0022215116000748en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record