Aided free-field thresholds in children with conductive hearing loss fitted with air- or bone-conduction hearing aids

1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.F.M. Snik ◽  
E.A.M. Mylanus ◽  
C.W.R.J. Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Hearing in Noise With Unilateral Versus Bilateral Bone Conduction Hearing Aids in Adults With Pseudo-conductive Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-385
Author(s):  
Ohad Hilly ◽  
Meirav Sokolov ◽  
Reut Beck Finkel ◽  
Ofir Zavdy ◽  
Rafael Shemesh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Conductive Hearing

scholarly journals ADHEAR in Conductive Hearing Loss: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Marques ◽  
A Carvalho ◽  
A Miguéis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Middle Ear Cholesteatoma ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Hearing System

Abstract Introduction Bone conduction hearing systems can be applied through non-invasive devices, using soft bands that exert pressure on the skin, or they can be surgically implanted (Bone Anchored Hearing Aid - BAHA). However, these bone conduction devices are frequently not well accepted due to the pressure on the head. Therefore, a new non-surgical hearing system was developed not to exert pressure on the skin, the ADHEAR. The bone anchorage in ADHEAR is performed through an adhesive adapter and is indicated for patients with conductive hearing loss and normal inner ear function. Objectives Evaluate the audiological performance with the adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) in a patient with conductive hearing loss. Methodology The study was designed as a prospective single-subject repeated-measure study with the subject serving as his own control. A 29 year old female patient who had a primary surgery due to middle ear cholesteatoma, was adapted with unilateral non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss. Air and bone conduction thresholds, word recognition scores (WRS) and speech recognition thresholds (SRT) in quiet and noise were assessed to verify the inclusion criteria of the study. Aided and unaided pure tone audiometry at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in free field and speech audiometry in quiet and noise were performed at baseline and after 4 weeks with the ADHEAR. Results The functional gain with the ADHEAR averaged over 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz after 4 weeks of usage of the adhesive hearing system, improved from 55 dB HL to 31dB HL. Speech perception in quiet and noise improved significantly in the aided situation, with SRT in quiet improving from 60 to 35 dB HL, when compared to the unaided condition. Similar results were found in noise. The patient evaluated the ADHEAR system as being useful, and without complaints of skin pressure. There was no adverse skin reaction. Conclusion Hearing performance was significantly better with ADHEAR under all test conditions. Therefore, this transcutaneous hearing system seems to be an excellent alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for clinical reasons cannot undergo surgery or conventional hearing aids. Furthermore, it preserves skin over the mastoid and reduces the risk of infection. Otherwise it has benefits verified by absence of head pressure and improvement of patient’s quality of life.

Comparison of Traditional Bone-Conduction Hearing Aids with the Baha® System

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (04) ◽  
pp. 267-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Christensen ◽  
Laura Smith-Olinde ◽  
Jillian Kimberlain ◽  
Gresham T. Richter ◽  
John L. Dornhoffer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
System Versus ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Functional Gain ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Background: Little research exists to demonstrate efficacy and verification measures of the Baha® system versus traditional bone-conduction hearing aids. This study gives statistical data about 10 children who have used traditional bone-conduction hearing aids, Baha coupled to a Softband, and the Baha system implanted. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare functional gain at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz for infants and children with bilateral conductive hearing loss who were initially fit with traditional bone-conduction devices then progressed to Baha with Softband and finally to unilateral Baha implants. Research Design: Retrospective five-year chart review. Study Sample: 10 children with bilateral conductive hearing loss due to congenital atresia and/or microtia. Participants ranged in age from 6 mo to 16 yr; three were male and seven were female. Two participants were African-American, five Caucasian, and three Hispanic. Intervention: The intervention was the Baha system used in children via a Softband or implanted as compared to traditional bone-conduction hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: Single-factor, repeated analyses of variance were run to examine the amount of functional gain delivered by the various devices as well as the threshold measures with each device at each frequency. Results: Participants in this study showed a statistically significant improvement when using the Baha Softband over traditional bone-conduction hearing aids. An implanted Baha has statistically as much gain as a bone-conduction transducer at all frequencies tested. Conclusions: The Baha system is a valid treatment in conductive hearing loss via a Softband or implanted. It statistically outperforms the traditional bone-conduction hearing aids and should be used as a first choice in intervention rather than a last option for inoperable conductive hearing loss.

scholarly journals Audiological Performance of ADHEAR Systems in Simulated Conductive Hearing Loss: A Case Series with a Review of the Existing Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-546
Author(s):  
Enrico Muzzi ◽  
Valeria Gambacorta ◽  
Ruggero Lapenna ◽  
Giulia Pizzamiglio ◽  
Sara Ghiselli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Implant ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Loudness Summation

A new non-invasive adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ABCD) has been proposed as an alternative solution for reversible bilateral conductive hearing loss in recurrent or long-lasting forms of otitis media with effusion (OME) in children that cannot undergo surgical treatment. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of ABCD in children with OME. Twelve normal-hearing Italian-speaking volunteers, in whom a conductive hearing loss was simulated, participated in the study. The free-field average hearing threshold was determined and, to evaluate binaural hearing skills, loudness summation and the squelch effect were assessed. Five conditions were tested: (1) unaided without earplugs, (2) unaided with bilateral earplugs, (3) aided right ear with bilateral earplugs, (4) aided left ear with bilateral earplugs, and (5) bilateral aid with bilateral earplugs. Post-hoc analysis showed a significant statistical difference between plugged, unplugged, and each aided condition. The main results were a better loudness summation and a substantial improvement of the squelch effect in the bilaterally aided. Our results suggest that ABCD is a valid treatment for patients with conductive hearing loss that cannot undergo bone conduction implant surgery. It is also important to consider bilateral aids in order to deal with situations in which binaural hearing is fundamental.

Bone Conduction Implants: Transcutaneous vs. Percutaneous

1992 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip S. Wade ◽  
Jerry J. Halik ◽  
Marshall Chasin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Clinical experience with transcutaneous bone conduction implants has demonstrated that they are most beneficial for patients with purely conductive hearing loss in at least one ear. Percutaneous bone conduction implants, however, have been reported to provide adequate benefit for patients with mixed hearing loss with bone conduction pure-tone averages up to 45 db hl (Tjellstrom, 1989). The results of 24 Xomed Audiant osseointegrated bone conduction hearing devices (including a clinical trial on two patients using a new, larger magnet [Neodynium Iron Boron]), plus the results of eleven patients implanted and fitted with the percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid are reported. Aided results with these devices will be presented. In addition, general comparisons of benefit obtained with the two devices will be made for patients who exhibit similar hearing losses. Finally, a direct comparison will be made on two patients who have undergone both implant procedures.

One-Year Follow-Up in Children with Conductive Hearing Loss Using ADHEAR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Mario E. Zernotti ◽  
Elvira Alvarado ◽  
Maximo Zernotti ◽  
Natalia Claveria ◽  
Maria F. Di Gregorio
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Aural Atresia ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

<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.

scholarly journals The Sophono Bone-Conduction System: Surgical, Audiologic, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 96 (7) ◽  
pp. E28-E33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Mclean ◽  
Irumee Pai ◽  
Andrew Philipatos ◽  
Michael Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Conductive Hearing

We prospectively evaluated the surgical, audiologic, and quality-of-life outcomes in 5 patients—2 men and 3 women, aged 22 to 64 years (mean: 41.8)—who were implanted with the Sophono Alpha 2 MPO Processor. The indications for implantation of this bone-conduction device included recurrent ear canal infections with hearing aids (n = 3), single-sided deafness (n = 1), and patient preference in view of difficulty using a conventional hearing aid (n = 1). In addition to the patient with single-sided deafness, 3 patients had a bilateral mixed hearing loss and 1 had a bilateral conductive hearing loss. Outcomes measures included surgical complications, functional gain (FG), speech discrimination in quiet and noise, and patient satisfaction as determined by the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and the Entific Medical Systems bone-anchored hearing aid questionnaire (BAQ). The only postsurgical complication noted was a minor skin reaction and pain in 1 patient that resolved with conservative management. In the 3 patients with the mixed hearing loss, the mean FG was 13.3, 20.0, 11.7, and 11.7 dB at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, respectively; in the patient with the bilateral conductive hearing loss, the FG was 10, 25, 10, and 15 dB at the same frequencies. Speech discrimination scores with the Sophono device were comparable to those seen with conventional hearing aids. After implantation, all 5 patients experienced a positive quality-of-life outcome according to the GBI, although 1 of them had only a marginal improvement. On follow-up, all patients reported that they remained satisfied with their implant and that they used their device all day long. We conclude that the Sophono bone-conduction system is a safe and effective option that should be considered for patients with a mixed or conductive hearing loss who are unable to use a conventional hearing aid, as well as for those with single-sided deafness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document