scholarly journals Subjective Outcomes With Bone Conduction and Middle Ear Implants for Patients Wth Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A364
Author(s):  
M Kosaner Kliess ◽  
R Zoehrer ◽  
B Schlick ◽  
M Mariacher ◽  
M Urban
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

Comparison of Carina active middle-ear implant with conventional hearing aids for mixed hearing loss

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (4) ◽  
pp. 340-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
V A Savaş ◽  
B Gündüz ◽  
R Karamert ◽  
R Cevizci ◽  
M Düzlü ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Patient Acceptance ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Glasgow Benefit Inventory ◽  
Middle Ear Implants

AbstractObjective:To compare the auditory outcomes of Carina middle-ear implants with those of conventional hearing aids in patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss.Methods:The study comprised nine patients (six males, three females) who underwent middle-ear implantation with Carina fully implantable active middle-ear implants to treat bilateral moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss. The patients initially used conventional hearing aids and subsequently received the Carina implants. The hearing thresholds with implants and hearing aids were compared.Results:There were no significant differences between: the pre-operative and post-operative air and bone conduction thresholds (p> 0.05), the thresholds with hearing aids and Carina implants (p> 0.05), or the pre-operative (mean, 72.8 ± 19 per cent) and post-operative (mean, 69.9 ± 24 per cent) speech discrimination scores (p> 0.05). One of the patients suffered total sensorineural hearing loss three months following implantation despite an initial 38 dB functional gain. All except one patient showed clinical improvements after implantation according to quality of life questionnaire (Glasgow Benefit Inventory) scores.Conclusion:Acceptance of Carina implants is better than with conventional hearing aids in patients with mixed hearing loss, although both yield similar hearing amplification. Cosmetic reasons appear to be critical for patient acceptance.

New Perspectives for Middle Ear Implants: First Results in Otosclerosis With Mixed Hearing Loss

2007 ◽  
Vol 117 (3) ◽  
pp. 552-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederic Venail ◽  
Jean Pierre Lavieille ◽  
Renaud Meller ◽  
Arnaud Deveze ◽  
Laurent Tardivet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
First Results ◽  
Middle Ear Implants

scholarly journals The Bonebridge BCI 602 Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant in Children: Objective and Subjective Benefits

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 5916
Author(s):  
Katarzyna B. Cywka ◽  
Henryk Skarżyński ◽  
Bartłomiej Król ◽  
Piotr H. Skarżyński
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Subjective Assessment ◽  
Congenital Defects ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Reception ◽  
Bone Conduction Implant

Background: the Bonebridge hearing implant is an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant suitable for various types of hearing loss. It was first launched in 2012 as the BCI 601, with a newer internal part (BCI 602) released in 2019. With the new size and shape, the BCI 602 can be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient anatomical conditions, especially in patients with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear. Objectives: the purpose of this study is to evaluate the objective and subjective benefits of the new Bonebridge BCI 602 in children who have hearing impairment due to conductive or mixed hearing loss. Safety and effectiveness of the device was assessed. Methods: the study group included 22 children aged 8–18 years (mean age 14.7 years) who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients were implanted unilaterally with the new Bonebridge BCI 602 implant. Pure tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed before and after implantation. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Demenko and Pruszewicz Polish Monosyllabic Word Test, and speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. The subjective assessment of benefits was carried outusing the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Results: after implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 all patients showed a statistically significant improvement in hearing and speech understanding. The mean word recognition score (WRS) changed from 12.1% before implantation to 87.3% after 6 months. Mean speech reception threshold (SRT) before implantation was +4.79 dB SNR and improved to −1.29 dB SNR after 6 months. All patients showed stable postoperative results. The APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after implantation, with a statistically significant improvement in global score. Pre-operative scores (M = 35.7) were significantly worse than post-operative scores at 6 months (M = 25.7). Conclusions: the present study confirms that the Bonebridge BCI 602 is an innovative and effective solution, especially for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss due to anatomical ear defects. The Bonebridge BCI 602 system provides valuable and stable audiological and surgical benefits. Subjective assessment also confirms the effectiveness of the BCI 602. The BCI 602 offers the same amplification as the BCI601, but with a smaller size. The smaller dimensions make it an effective treatment option for a wider group of patients, especially children with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear.

scholarly journals Hearing Aid Treatment in Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss. Part I: Expected Benefit and Limitations after Stapes Surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Nina Wardenga ◽  
Victoria Diedrich ◽  
Bernd Waldmann ◽  
Thomas Lenarz ◽  
Hannes Maier
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Stapes Surgery ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Middle Ear Implants

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to determine the fraction of patients with mixed hearing loss who can or cannot expect benefit from power hearing aids (HAs) after stapes surgery. Design: The audiological outcome of 374 stapes surgeries was used to calculate the patients’ individual postoperative requirements in terms of gain and output of HAs. These requirements were compared to the available gain and output provided by state-of-the-art power HAs at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz. According to these comparisons, ears were divided into three groups. For G0, required gain and output lay within the corresponding technical limits of the HAs at all frequencies. In G1, one or both requirements could not be fulfilled at 1 frequency. G2 combined all ears where the requirements lay beyond the HA’s technical limitations at 2 or more frequencies. Results: Stapes surgery resulted in an improvement of air-bone gap (ABG) in 84.5% of the cases by 15.7 dB on average. Based on pure-tone average (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz), 40.6% of all cases showed an ABG ≤10 dB. 44.9% of all cases did no longer need a HA after stapes surgery. A power HA would fulfill both audiological criteria at all 4 frequencies in 81.6% of cases that needed a HA postoperatively. However, 18.4% would not be sufficiently treatable at 1 or more frequencies (15.0% in G1, 3.4% in G2). Conclusions: The present study identified a subset of patients with mixed hearing loss after stapes surgery that cannot be treated sufficiently with available power HAs. As the residual ABG is an important reason for this lack of treatment success, the advancement of alternative hearing devices that circumvent the middle ear, such as powerful active middle ear implants, is indicated.

Application of Active Middle Ear Implants in Patients With Severe Mixed Hearing Loss

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronique J. O. Verhaegen ◽  
Jef J. S. Mulder ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear Implants

Benefits of active middle ear implants in mixed hearing loss: Stapes versus round window

2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (6) ◽  
pp. 1435-1441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeon Mi Lee ◽  
Jinsei Jung ◽  
In Seok Moon ◽  
Sung Huhn Kim ◽  
Jae Young Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Round Window ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear Implants

scholarly journals Middle ear implants: functional gain in mixed hearing loss

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Emilio Zernotti ◽  
Maria Fernanda Di Gregorio ◽  
Andrea C. Bravo Sarasty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Functional Gain

scholarly journals Sound Localization and Lateralization by Bilateral Bone Conduction Devices, Middle Ear Implants, and Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 508-523
Author(s):  
Kimio Shiraishi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Aural Atresia ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
And Cartilage

Sound localization in daily life is one of the important functions of binaural hearing. Bilateral bone conduction devices (BCDs), middle ear implants, and cartilage conduction hearing aids have been often applied for patients with conductive hearing loss (CHL) or mixed hearing loss, for example, resulting from bilateral microtia and aural atresia. In this review, factors affecting the accuracy of sound localization with bilateral BCDs, middle ear implants, and cartilage conduction hearing aids were classified into four categories: (1) types of device, (2) experimental conditions, (3) participants, and (4) pathways from the stimulus sound to both cochleae. Recent studies within the past 10 years on sound localization and lateralization by BCDs, middle ear implants, and cartilage conduction hearing aids were discussed. Most studies showed benefits for sound localization or lateralization with bilateral devices. However, the judgment accuracy was generally lower than that for normal hearing, and the localization errors tended to be larger than for normal hearing. Moreover, it should be noted that the degree of accuracy in sound localization by bilateral BCDs varied considerably among patients. Further research on sound localization is necessary to analyze the complicated mechanism of bone conduction, including suprathreshold air conduction with bilateral devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document