title: Auditory brainstem implant part II: subjective assessment of functional outcome.
abstract: OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to present the patients' recommendations and judgments about their hearing and communication abilities with the help of the auditory brainstem implant.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Tertiary referral center.
  
  
  METHODS
  This evaluation was based on the data obtained by the self-administered questionnaires designed for the European Auditory Brainstem Implant Multicenter Clinical Trial. Eleven patients who had used their auditory brainstem implant for a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 41 months were evaluated with the help of these questionnaires.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All the patients had used their implant on a regular daily basis for an average of 13 hours per day. None of them experienced any side effects during the daily use of the device. Nine patients (82%) used their auditory brainstem implant in both quiet and noisy surroundings. The most common cause of disturbance was a noisy surrounding. All the patients were able to distinguish speech from environmental sounds. The role of the auditory brainstem implant in differentiating various environmental sounds was considered to be very useful by 9 patients (82%). As an adjuvant to lip-reading, the auditory brainstem implant was considered most useful for understanding speech in quiet surroundings.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  It was concluded that the auditory brainstem implant is an effective support for receiving and, to some degree, differentiating environmental sounds, and that as an adjuvant to lip-reading, it enhances speech perception, especially in quiet surroundings. A comparison between the results of this study and the results of the audiologic tests presented in Part I of this study (published earlier) revealed that patient satisfaction was not directly correlated with the results of the objective auditory tests. In general, patients' judgments of their individual hearing and communication abilities usually rated higher than could have been predicted by the objective audiometric data.
authors.affiliation: Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University of Hannover, Germany. lenarz@hno.mh-hannover.de
authors.forename: Minoo
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lenarz
authors.forename: Cordula
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Matthies
authors.forename: Anke
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lesinski-Schiedat
authors.forename: Carolin
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Frohne
authors.forename: Urte
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Rost
authors.forename: Angelika
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Illg
authors.forename: Rolf D
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Battmer
authors.forename: Madjid
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Samii
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Lenarz
mesh_terms: D038262:Auditory Brain Stem Implants; D001307:Auditory Perception; D003142:Communication; D004777:Environment; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008085:Lipreading; D009622:Noise / Q000009:adverse effects; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013067:Speech Perception; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013689:Telephone