Management of Conductive Hearing Loss Associated with Aural Atresia and Microtia

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-166
Author(s):  
Craig Miller ◽  
Randall A. Bly ◽  
Kathleen C. Y. Sie
1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol L. Mackersie ◽  
David R. Stapells

Wave I latencies were used to predict the magnitude of conductive components in 80 infants and young children (122 ears) with normal hearing, conductive hearing loss due to otitis media or aural atresia, sensorineural hearing loss, and mixed hearing loss. Two prediction methods were used. The first method based predictions on a 0.03-ms wave I latency delay for each decibel of conductive hearing loss. The second method was based on a regression analysis of wave I latency delays and the magnitude of conductive component for the subjects in this study with normal cochlear status. On average, these prediction methods resulted in prediction errors of 15 dB or greater in over one-third of the ears with hearing loss. Therefore, the clinical use of wave I latencies to predict the presence or magnitude of conductive impairment is not recommended for infants and young children. Instead, bone-conduction ABR testing is recommended as a direct measure of cochlear status when behavioral evaluation is not possible.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Mario E. Zernotti ◽  
Elvira Alvarado ◽  
Maximo Zernotti ◽  
Natalia Claveria ◽  
Maria F. Di Gregorio

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The ADHEAR™ system (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) is a nonsurgical bone conduction device (BCD) to treat conductive hearing loss (CHL) and single-sided deafness. In contrast to the nonsurgical alternatives on headbands or spectacle frames, the audio processor of ADHEAR is placed retroauricularly on an adhesive adapter. The published evidence on the performance of this system is limited to studies with a trial period of 2–8 weeks. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> This study assesses audiological and subjective outcomes over a period of 12 months, on patients with congenital aural atresia (CAA) using the ADHEAR hearing system. <b><i>Method:</i></b> Fifteen children (mean age: 9.4 ± 4 years; range: 5–16 years) diagnosed with CAA (7 uni/8 bilateral) were included in this prospective, observational, repeated-measures study. Each subject used ADHEAR for 1 year, and the performance was evaluated after 1, 6, and 12 months. Free-field audiometry and speech discrimination tests were performed, and hearing-, general health- and device-specific questionnaires were used. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The unaided sound field threshold improved from an average PTA4 of 63.6 ± 3.4 dB HL to an aided average PTA4 of 29.3 ± 3.0 dB HL after 1 month of device use. The word recognition score (WRS) improved from an average of 27.9 ± 15.9% unaided to an aided average WRS of 91.3 ± 4.4% (<i>p</i> = 0.0003) after 1 month, 92.0 ± 4.1% (<i>p</i> = 0.0002) after 6 months, and 92.7 ± 5.3% (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001) after 12 months using the ADHEAR system compared to the unaided condition for all 3 time points. The improvements in the speech in noise at 1, 6, and 12 months were as well consistent over time. The average improvement at the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of +5 dB was 58% and 53% at the SNR of +0 dB. No complications were reported, and all patients continued to use the ADHEAR after the study end. The questionnaire results revealed high user satisfaction and an average wearing time of 12 h per day. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> This 12-month trial of the nonsurgical adhesive BCD in CAA patients showed sufficient and reliable audiological and subjective outcomes, long wearing time, and high acceptance. The ADHEAR can be considered a suitable option to treat children with CAA for the given indication, without the drawbacks of nonsurgical devices that use pressure for retention of the audio processor or the costs and possible complications involved with a surgical alternative.


2013 ◽  
Vol 123 (9) ◽  
pp. 2270-2275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley W. Kesser ◽  
Kaelyn Krook ◽  
Lincoln C. Gray

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (S3) ◽  
pp. S188-S188
Author(s):  
Pieter Kemp ◽  
Jiska van Stralen ◽  
Pim de Graaf ◽  
Erwin Berkhout ◽  
Jan Wolff ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 826-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rik C. Nelissen ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers ◽  
Myrthe K. S. Hol ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 030006052097228
Author(s):  
Yujie Liu ◽  
Ran Ren ◽  
Shouqin Zhao

The Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge systems are semi-implanted hearing devices, which have been widely applied in patients with congenital conductive hearing loss. However, comparison between these two hearing devices is rare, especially in the same patient. We report a 23-year-old man who underwent successive implantation of Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge devices in the same ear because of dysfunction of the Vibrant Soundbridge. We provide insight on the patient’s experience and compare the audiological and subjective outcomes of satisfaction.


1980 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRED H. BESS ◽  
G. W. MILLER ◽  
MICHAEL E. GLASSCOCK ◽  
GENE W. BRATT

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document