Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Universidade de Lisb...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Implantes cocleares bilaterais vs unilaterais

Authors: Ramalho, Miguel Ângelo Felicio;

Implantes cocleares bilaterais vs unilaterais

Abstract

A surdez sensorineural apresenta um grande impacto na vida da população afetada, com consequências a nível linguístico, cognitivo, emocional e de desenvolvimento social que contribuem para uma diminuição da qualidade de vida. Atualmente, a implantação coclear é a melhor solução para aumentar a capacidade auditiva e a qualidade de vida. Apesar de existirem registos de estimulação elétrica do sistema auditivo há mais duzentos anos, a investigação dos implantes cocleares apenas começou a ser efetivamente realizada há cerca de 60 anos e apenas há cerca de 40 anos os implantes cocleares começaram a ser aceites pela comunidade científica. Desde então os implantes cocleares unilaterais tornaram-se o tratamento padrão; contudo, começou a ser colocada a hipótese de a implantação coclear bilateral poder ser superior à unilateral. A implantação coclear bilateral revelou-se superior na localização de sons, na perceção do discurso, no aumento da qualidade de vida e também no desenvolvimento escolar das crianças. Em relação ao custo-efetividade os resultados obtidos diferem entre estudos; apesar de possivelmente poderem ser custo-efetivos, principalmente nas crianças, não é possível classificar com clareza a relação de custo-efetividade. No entanto, estratégias que diminuam os custos da implantação poderão futuramente favorecer o custo-efetividade. Além disso, existem atualmente várias tecnologias que têm sido alvo de investigação com o objetivo de aumentar os benefícios da implantação coclear.

Sensorineural deafness greatly impacts the life of the affected population. It has linguistic, cognitive, emotional and social consequences, which contributes to a worse quality of life. Cochlear implantation is currently the best solution by improving hearing abilities and quality of life. Although records with over two hundred years show studies of electrical stimulation of the auditory system, cochlear implant research only began around 60 years ago and scientific community only accepted them about 40 years ago. Since then unilateral cochlear implants have become the standard treatment, but with time it began to be questioned if bilateral implantation would be better than unilateral implantation. Bilateral cochlear implantation showed improvements in localization of sounds, speech perception, quality of life and school development of children. Regarding cost-effectiveness, the results differ between studies and although they may be cost-effective, especially in children, it isn’t possible to clearly classify their cost-effectiveness. In future, strategies that reduce implantation costs may favour cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, there are currently several technologies under research with the objective to increase the benefits of cochlear implantation.

Trabalho Final do Curso de Mestrado Integrado em Medicina, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 2018

Country
Portugal
Related Organizations
Keywords

Implantação bilateral, Otorrinolaringologia, Domínio/Área Científica::Ciências Médicas, Implantes cocleares, Implantação unilateral, Surdez sensorineural

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green