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/ Recolector de Cienci...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/
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/
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/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
versions View all 6 versions
addClaim

Implantes cocleares. Valoración clínica

Authors: Benito López, Manuel;

Implantes cocleares. Valoración clínica

Abstract

Dos grupos de pacientes (16 en total): Prelinguales y postlinguales.Dos tipos diferentes de implantes cocleares (I.C.): Los monocanales de House fabricados por la 3M y el multicanal de Clark comercializado por Nucleus.La valoración de los resultados se efectuó con las siguientes pruebas :- Umbrales audiometricos - Capacidad de discriminación (De sonidos ambientales y del lenguaje)- Ayuda en la lectura labial y Beneficios en la emisión de la propia voz- Posibles efectos secundariosConcluimos que:1) Resultados globales muy superiores del I.C. multicanal, respecto al monocanal2 Pobres resultados en los prelinguales con ambos tipos de I.C.3) Umbrales audiométricos algo mejores en los multicanales 4) Los dos grupos de pacientes mejoraron claramente en la emisión de la voz, dándole una buena entonación.5) Los dos grupos mejoraron la capacidad de lectura labial.6) Ambos discriminan sonidos ambientales, siendo la capacidad del multicanal superior.7) Capacidad de DiscriminaciónLa ganancia es muy superior en el multicanal. Los fonemas vocálicos en los monocanales, presentan un 53,5% de aciertos y las consonantes el 36,4%. En los multicanales son de un 96% y un 72.3% respectivamente. En la prueba de monosílabas los monocanales solo tienen un 0,5% y los multicanales un 31,3%. Los bisílabas, en listas de 4 bisílabos y en silencio, el monocanal presenta un 50,8% de aciertos y el multicanal el 86,1%, aunque en presencia de ruido ambiental de 10 Db en la relación señal ruido, cae dicha capacidad de discriminación, a 30,6% y 68,3% respectivamente. En listas abiertas de bisílabas las discriminaciones son de un 26.4% para el monocanal y de un 70,3% para el multicanal..El tanto por ciento de discriminación de palabras en frases comunes para el monocanal y multicanal, presentada solo con el I.C. son de 1,4% y 57,1% respectivamente, solo con lectura labial, era del 74,2% y del 80,3%. Uniendo la lectura labial al empleo del I.C. mejoraban claramente, pasando del al 82,8% los monocanales y al 95% los multicanales. 8) El test promontorial: Valor relativo para predecir resultados de I.C.9) No se produce degeneración del nervio acústico por la estimulación continuada.10) No hemos encontrado efectos secundarios importantes tras la implantación (ruptura del electrodo en un monocanal y un caso de tics faciales).

Country
Spain
Related Organizations
Keywords

Audiometry, Audiometria, Cochlear implants, Implants coclears, 617, Problemes d'audició, Ciències de la Salut

  • 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
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 75
    download downloads 379
  • 75
    views
    379
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
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!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
75
379
Green