A Novel Method to Determine the Maximum Output of Individual Patients for an Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant Using Clinical Routine Data.
Journal
Ear and hearing
ISSN: 1538-4667
Titre abrégé: Ear Hear
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8005585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023
Historique:
medline:
15
8
2023
pubmed:
15
8
2023
entrez:
15
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The maximum output provided by a bone conduction (BC) device is one of the main factors that determines the success when treating patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Different approaches such as sound pressure measurements using a probe microphone in the external auditory canal or a surface microphone on the forehead have been previously introduced to determine the maximum output of active transcutaneous BC devices that are not directly accessible after implantation. Here, we introduce a method to determine the maximum output hearing level (MOHL) of a transcutaneous active BC device using patients' audiometric data. We determined the maximum output in terms of hearing level MOHL (dB HL) of the Bonebridge using the audiometric and direct BC threshold of the patient together with corresponding force levels at hearing threshold and the maximum force output of the device. Seventy-one patients implanted with the Bonebridge between 2011 and 2020 (average age 45 ± 19 years ranging from 5 to 84 years) were included in this study. The analyses of MOHLs were performed by (1) dividing patients into two groups with better or worse average audiometric BC threshold (0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz), on the ipsilateral side or (2) by separating the MOHLs based on better or worse frequency-by-frequency specific audiometric BC thresholds on the ipsilateral (implanted) side. When using a frequency-by-frequency analysis obtained average ipsilateral MOHLs were in the range between 51 and 73 dB HL for frequencies from 0.5 to 6 kHz in the group with better audiometric BC threshold on the ipsilateral ears. The average contralateral MOHLs in the group with better contralateral hearing were in the range from 43 to 67 dB HL. The variability of the data was approximately 6 to 11 dB (SDs) across measured frequencies (0.5 to 6 kHz). The average MOHLs were 4 to 8 dB higher across frequencies in the group with better audiometric BC threshold on the ipsilateral ears than in the group with better audiometric BC threshold on the contralateral ears. The differences between groups were significant across measured frequencies (t test; p < 0.05). Our proposed method demonstrates that the individual frequency-specific MOHL on the ipsilateral and contralateral side of individual patients with a transcutaneous BC device can be determined mainly using direct and audiometric BC threshold data of the patients from clinical routine. The average MOHL of the implant was found 4 to 8 dB higher on the ipsilateral (implanted) side than on the contralateral side.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37580866
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001415
pii: 00003446-990000000-00187
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Ear & Hearing is published on behalf of the American Auditory Society, by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Otol Neurotol. 2022 Jun 1;43(5):513-529
pubmed: 35383700
J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Feb;97(2):1124-9
pubmed: 7876434
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Oct;118(4):2373-91
pubmed: 16266160
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Aug;36(7):1151-6
pubmed: 26111077
Int J Audiol. 2008 Dec;47(12):761-9
pubmed: 19085400
Clin Otolaryngol. 2018 Feb;43(1):68-75
pubmed: 28485088
Scand Audiol. 1989;18(2):91-8
pubmed: 2756338
Hear Res. 2022 Aug;421:108369
pubmed: 34728110
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Feb;33(2):105-14
pubmed: 22193619
Biomed Res Int. 2021 Oct 22;2021:1518385
pubmed: 34722757
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Jun;38(5):642-647
pubmed: 28375939
Hear Res. 2013 Dec;306:11-20
pubmed: 24047594
Int J Audiol. 2023 Apr;62(4):357-361
pubmed: 35238713
Hear Res. 2022 Aug;421:108491
pubmed: 35437208
Otol Neurotol. 2014 Aug;35(7):1126-30
pubmed: 24662632
Int J Audiol. 2017 Jul;56(7):521-530
pubmed: 28346016
Ergonomics. 2008 May;51(5):702-18
pubmed: 18432447
Ear Hear. 2018 Nov/Dec;39(6):1157-1164
pubmed: 29578886
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Dec;29(8):1132-9
pubmed: 18769364
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Apr;40(4):430-435
pubmed: 30870349