Citations 2
Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial
Bałkany, Thomas J., Hodges, Annelle V., Menapace, Christine, Hazard, Linda, Driscoll, Colin L. W., Gantz, Bruce J. , Kelsall, David C., Luxford, William M., McMenomy, Sean, Neely, J. Gail, Peters, B. Robert, Pillsbury, Harold C., Roberson, Joseph, Schramm, David , Telian, Steven A., Westerberg, Brian D. , Payne, Stacy L., Waltzman, Susan B.
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | May 1, 2007 | Volume: 136 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 757-762
OBJECTIVETo evaluate hearing outcomes and effects of stimulation rate on performance with the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (Cochlear Americas, Denver, CO).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGRandomized, controlled, prospective, single‐blind clinical study using single‐subject repeated measures (A‐B‐A‐B) design at 14 academic centers in the United States and Canada and comparison with outcomes of a prior device by the same manufacturer.PATIENTSSeventy‐one severely/profoundly hearing impaired adults.RESULTSSeventy‐one adult recipients were randomly programmed in two different sets of rate: ACE or higher rate ACE RE. Mean scores for Consonant Nucleus Consonant words is 57%, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in quiet 78%, and HINT sentences in noise 64%. Sixty‐seven percent of subjects preferred slower rates of stimulation, and performance did not improve with higher rates of stimulation using this device.CONCLUSIONSSubjects performed well, and there was no advantage to higher stimulation rates with this device.SIGNIFICANCEHigher stimulation rates do not necessarily result in improved performance.
The Workforce in Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery: Moving into the Next Millennium
Pillsbury, Harold C., Cannon, C. Ron, Holzer, Susan E. Sedory, Jacoby, Itzhak, Benninger, Michael S. , Denneny, James C. , Cheng, Eme Y., Hagner, Alison P., Meyer, Gregg S. , Nielsen, David R. , Smith, Richard V.
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | February 4, 2003 | Volume: 123 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 341-356
OBJECTIVEThe goal was to examine the current scope of otolaryngologists’ practices, their geographic distribution, and the roles otolaryngologists and other specialists play in caring for patients with otolaryngic and related conditions of the head and neck.STUDY DESIGNA large national survey and administrative claims databases were examined to develop practice profiles and compile a physician supply for otolaryngology. A focus group of otolaryngologists provided information to model future scenarios.RESULTSThe current and predicted workforce supply and demographics are at a satisfactory level and are decreasing as a proportion of the increasing population. Empiric data analysis supports the diverse nature of an otolaryngologist's practice and the unique role for otolaryngologists that is not shared by many other providers. Together with the focus group results, the study points to areas for which more background and training are warranted.CONCLUSIONSThis study represents a first step in a process to form coherent workforce recommendations for the field of otolaryngology.