James Saunders1, David Barrs. 1. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. james.saunders@hitchcock.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations concerning cochlear implantation during humanitarian medical trips by exploring the attitudes of US cochlear implant surgeons. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Academic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 405 members of the William House Cochlear Implant Study Group. The 198 respondents (49%), all active cochlear implant surgeons, were divided into 3 groups depending on their level of experience working in a developing country. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent of respondents supported cochlear implants in these environments, although 42% of these cochlear implant surgeons stated that they would modify their criteria for implantation considering the challenges in developing countries. There was strong support for cochlear implants in postlingual deafened patients and prelingual deafened patients under the age of 3 years, although nearly half of respondents (48%) would not implant prelingual deafened patients after they reached the age of 3 years. Three-quarters of respondents (74%) believed that developing countries should have the same access to current multichannel devices used in developed countries, as opposed to simpler, possibly lower cost devices. A local audiologist was deemed the most important personnel requirement (83%), and limited audiology and rehabilitative resources were the greatest postoperative concern rather than lack of postoperative care or infection. CONCLUSION: . This survey strongly supports the practice of performing cochlear implants during humanitarian trips to developing countries and makes best-practice recommendations to make outcomes successful.
OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations concerning cochlear implantation during humanitarian medical trips by exploring the attitudes of US cochlear implant surgeons. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Academic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 405 members of the William House Cochlear Implant Study Group. The 198 respondents (49%), all active cochlear implant surgeons, were divided into 3 groups depending on their level of experience working in a developing country. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent of respondents supported cochlear implants in these environments, although 42% of these cochlear implant surgeons stated that they would modify their criteria for implantation considering the challenges in developing countries. There was strong support for cochlear implants in postlingual deafened patients and prelingual deafened patients under the age of 3 years, although nearly half of respondents (48%) would not implant prelingual deafened patients after they reached the age of 3 years. Three-quarters of respondents (74%) believed that developing countries should have the same access to current multichannel devices used in developed countries, as opposed to simpler, possibly lower cost devices. A local audiologist was deemed the most important personnel requirement (83%), and limited audiology and rehabilitative resources were the greatest postoperative concern rather than lack of postoperative care or infection. CONCLUSION: . This survey strongly supports the practice of performing cochlear implants during humanitarian trips to developing countries and makes best-practice recommendations to make outcomes successful.
Authors: Tom Humphries; Poorna Kushalnagar; Gaurav Mathur; Donna Jo Napoli; Carol Padden; Christian Rathmann; Scott Smith Journal: J Med Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2014