You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 128 No. 11, November 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (16)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Cochlear Implantation
 •Quality of Life
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

A Cost-Utility Scenario Analysis of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation

A. Quentin Summerfield, PhD; David H. Marshall, PhD; Garry R. Barton, MSc; Karen E. Bloor, MSc

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128:1255-1262.

Context  Unilateral cochlear implantation is a cost-effective intervention for profound bilateral hearing loss. There is worldwide interest in providing implants bilaterally.

Objective  To use modeling to estimate the cost of gaining a quality-adjusted life-year by providing implants to both ears of profoundly postlingually deafened adults.

Design  Economic scenario analysis relating the costs of providing implants to estimates of the gain in health-related quality of life (utility) from unilateral and bilateral implantation.

Setting  Fourteen hospitals in the United Kingdom National Health Service and 1 Medical Research Council research unit.

Participants  Normal-hearing adult volunteers with knowledge of implantation (n = 70). Adults undergoing unilateral implantation who either did not benefit from acoustic hearing aids preoperatively (type 1, n = 87) or benefited marginally (type 2, n = 115).

Main Outcome Measures  Changes in utility from unilateral and bilateral implantation estimated with the time trade-off technique (volunteers) and from unilateral implantation measured with the Mark II Health Utilities Index (patients); costs of providing implants and sustaining patients who have undergone implantation (health care perspective).

Results  Gains in utility from unilateral implantation estimated by volunteers did not differ significantly from gains recorded by patients, giving credibility to the volunteers' estimate of the gain from bilateral compared with unilateral implantation. Cost-utility ratios, in pounds sterling per quality-adjusted life-year, based on volunteers' estimates, were £16 774 (type 1: unilateral implantation vs no intervention), £27 401 (type 2: unilateral implantation vs management with hearing aids), £61 734 (simultaneous bilateral implantation vs unilateral implantation), and £68 916 (provision of an additional implant vs no additional intervention).

Conclusion  More quality of life is likely to be gained per unit of expenditure on unilateral implantation than bilateral implantation.


From the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research, University Park, Nottingham, England (Drs Summerfield and Marshall); and Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation, University of York, York, England (Mr Barton and Ms Bloor).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Binaural-Bimodal Fitting or Bilateral Implantation for Managing Severe to Profound Deafness: A Review
Ching et al.
TRENDS AMPLIF 2007;11:161-192.
ABSTRACT  

Trends in Cochlear Implants
Zeng
TRENDS AMPLIF 2004;8:1-34.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.