Outcomes after Application of Active Bone Conducting Implants.
Adult
Aged
Bone Conduction
Cohort Studies
Female
Hearing
/ physiology
Hearing Aids
Hearing Loss, Conductive
/ physiopathology
Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural
/ physiopathology
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Quality of Life
Retrospective Studies
Speech Perception
/ physiology
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Active hearing implant
Audiometry
Bone conducting implant
Questionnaires
Single-sided deafness
Journal
Audiology & neuro-otology
ISSN: 1421-9700
Titre abrégé: Audiol Neurootol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9606930
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
26
03
2019
accepted:
10
07
2019
pubmed:
10
9
2019
medline:
22
5
2020
entrez:
10
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A bone conducting implant is a treatment option for individuals with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL, MHL) who do not tolerate regular hearing aids, and for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). An active bone conducting implant (ABCI) was introduced in 2012 with indication in CHL, MHL, and SSD, and it is still the only ABCI available. With complete implantation of the active transducer and consequent intact skin, a decrease in infections, skin overgrowth, and implant losses, all common disadvantages with earlier passive bone conducting implants, could be expected. Our Ear, Nose and Throat Department, a secondary care center for otosurgery that covers a population of approximately 365,000 inhabitants, was approved to implant ABCIs in 2012. Our aim was to conduct an evaluation of audiological and subjective outcomes after ABCIs. A cohort study with retrospective and prospective data collection was performed.The first 20 consecutive patients operated with an ABCI were asked for informed consent. The main outcome measures werepure tone and speech audiometry and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). Seventeen patients accepted to participate and 15 were able to complete all parts. Six patients had CHL or MHL. In this group the pure tone audiometry tests are comparable with an average functional hearing gain of 29.8 dB HL. With bilateral hearing, the mean Word Recognition Score (WRS) in noise was 35.7% unaided and 62.7% aided. Ten patients had the indication SSD. With the hearing ear blocked, the pure tone average was >101 dB HL, compared to 29.3 dB HL in sound field aided. With bilateral hearing, the mean WRS in noise was 59.7% unaided and 72.8% aided. The mean of the total GBI score was 42.1 in the group with CHL or MHL and 20.6 in the group with SSD. The patients benefit from their implants in terms of quality of life, and there is a substantial hearing gain from the implant for patients with conductive or MHL. Patients with SSD benefit less from the implant than other diagnoses but the positive outcomes are comparable to other options for this group.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A bone conducting implant is a treatment option for individuals with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL, MHL) who do not tolerate regular hearing aids, and for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). An active bone conducting implant (ABCI) was introduced in 2012 with indication in CHL, MHL, and SSD, and it is still the only ABCI available. With complete implantation of the active transducer and consequent intact skin, a decrease in infections, skin overgrowth, and implant losses, all common disadvantages with earlier passive bone conducting implants, could be expected. Our Ear, Nose and Throat Department, a secondary care center for otosurgery that covers a population of approximately 365,000 inhabitants, was approved to implant ABCIs in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim was to conduct an evaluation of audiological and subjective outcomes after ABCIs.
METHOD
A cohort study with retrospective and prospective data collection was performed.The first 20 consecutive patients operated with an ABCI were asked for informed consent. The main outcome measures werepure tone and speech audiometry and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI).
RESULTS
Seventeen patients accepted to participate and 15 were able to complete all parts. Six patients had CHL or MHL. In this group the pure tone audiometry tests are comparable with an average functional hearing gain of 29.8 dB HL. With bilateral hearing, the mean Word Recognition Score (WRS) in noise was 35.7% unaided and 62.7% aided. Ten patients had the indication SSD. With the hearing ear blocked, the pure tone average was >101 dB HL, compared to 29.3 dB HL in sound field aided. With bilateral hearing, the mean WRS in noise was 59.7% unaided and 72.8% aided. The mean of the total GBI score was 42.1 in the group with CHL or MHL and 20.6 in the group with SSD.
CONCLUSIONS
The patients benefit from their implants in terms of quality of life, and there is a substantial hearing gain from the implant for patients with conductive or MHL. Patients with SSD benefit less from the implant than other diagnoses but the positive outcomes are comparable to other options for this group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31499490
pii: 000502052
doi: 10.1159/000502052
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
197-205Informations de copyright
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.