Comparison of Active Bone Conduction Hearing Implant Systems in Unilateral and Bilateral Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss.
bilateral conductive hearing loss
binaural hearing
bone conduction implant
unilateral conductive hearing loss
Journal
Brain sciences
ISSN: 2076-3425
Titre abrégé: Brain Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101598646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2023
31 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
11
06
2023
revised:
20
07
2023
accepted:
29
07
2023
medline:
26
8
2023
pubmed:
26
8
2023
entrez:
26
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess and compare binaural benefits and subjective satisfaction of active bone conduction implant (BCI) in patients with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with bilateral BCI and patients with monaural conductive hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI. ITA Matrix test was performed both on patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural bone conduction hearing implant (Bonebridge, Med-El) before and after implantation of contralateral bone conduction hearing implant and on patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss before and after implantation of monaural BCI. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was administered to both groups of subjects and the results were compared with each other. Patients of group 1 reported a difference of 4.66 dB in the summation setting compared to 0.79 dB of group 2 ( Bilateral BCI in patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss might show more advantages in terms of sound localisation, speech perception in noise and subjective satisfaction if compared to unilateral BCI fitting in patients affected by unilateral conductive hearing impairment. This may be explained by the different individual transcranial attenuation of each subject, which might lead to different outcomes in terms of binaural hearing achievement. On the other hand, patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI achieved good results in terms of binaural hearing and for this reason, there is no absolute contraindication to implantation in those patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To assess and compare binaural benefits and subjective satisfaction of active bone conduction implant (BCI) in patients with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with bilateral BCI and patients with monaural conductive hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI.
METHODS
METHODS
ITA Matrix test was performed both on patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural bone conduction hearing implant (Bonebridge, Med-El) before and after implantation of contralateral bone conduction hearing implant and on patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss before and after implantation of monaural BCI. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was administered to both groups of subjects and the results were compared with each other.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Patients of group 1 reported a difference of 4.66 dB in the summation setting compared to 0.79 dB of group 2 (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Bilateral BCI in patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss might show more advantages in terms of sound localisation, speech perception in noise and subjective satisfaction if compared to unilateral BCI fitting in patients affected by unilateral conductive hearing impairment. This may be explained by the different individual transcranial attenuation of each subject, which might lead to different outcomes in terms of binaural hearing achievement. On the other hand, patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI achieved good results in terms of binaural hearing and for this reason, there is no absolute contraindication to implantation in those patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37626506
pii: brainsci13081150
doi: 10.3390/brainsci13081150
pmc: PMC10452068
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Feb;33(2):105-14
pubmed: 22193619
Audiol Neurootol. 2021;26(5):295-302
pubmed: 33567425
J Am Acad Audiol. 2010 Apr;21(4):274-86
pubmed: 20388453
Hear Res. 2018 Dec;370:238-247
pubmed: 30174182
Ear Hear. 2016 Nov/Dec;37(6):690-702
pubmed: 27560492
Int J Audiol. 2015;54 Suppl 2:44-50
pubmed: 26371592
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007 Jan;71(1):135-45
pubmed: 17092570
Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;71:73-83
pubmed: 21389707
Ear Hear. 2013 Nov-Dec;34(6):806-8
pubmed: 23698625
Int J Audiol. 2006 Oct;45(10):595-9
pubmed: 17062501
Laryngoscope. 2001 Jun;111(6):955-8
pubmed: 11404603
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Jan;29(1):2-7
pubmed: 18199951
Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;71:84-91
pubmed: 21389708
Ear Hear. 2020 Sep/Oct;41(5):1327-1332
pubmed: 32032221
Otol Neurotol. 2020 Mar;41(3):379-385
pubmed: 31917768
Otol Neurotol. 2022 Oct 1;43(9):1000-1004
pubmed: 36040056
Otol Neurotol. 2018 Sep;39(8):1025-1030
pubmed: 30015748