Contribution of spectral pinna cues for sound localization in children with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss after hearing rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
Vol 385 ◽  
pp. 107847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Vogt ◽  
Jan-Willem Wasmann ◽  
A. John Van Opstal ◽  
Ad F.M. Snik ◽  
Martijn J.H. Agterberg
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Sound Localization in Patients With Congenital Unilateral Conductive Hearing Loss With a Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erich Vyskocil ◽  
Rudolfs Liepins ◽  
Alexandra Kaider ◽  
Michaela Blineder ◽  
Sasan Hamzavi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Bone Conduction Implant ◽  
Conductive Hearing

scholarly journals Hearing Loss in Mucopolysaccharidosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cibele Gomes Bicalho ◽  
Emília Katiane Embiruçu de Araújo Leão ◽  
Álvaro Muiños de Andrade ◽  
Angelina Xavier Acosta
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Clinical Examination ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Lysosomal Enzymes ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Abstract Introduction Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) is a set of rare diseases caused by deficiency of lysosomal enzymes that lead to the accumulation of glycosaminoglycans (GAG) in tissues and organs, which, in turn, is responsible for the multisystemic clinical, chronic, and progressive symptoms. Objective To describe the profile of the otorhinolaryngological clinical examination and audiology tests of patients with MPS disease. Methods The present study is a case series. The evaluation was performed, initially, in 24 patients with MPS types I, II, IIIA, IV and VI. Results The most common hearing complaint was hearing loss, which was confirmed by audiology tests in almost 100% of the patients, most of whom presented conductive hearing loss. Conclusions It is important to evaluate the complaints, physical examination, and audiology tests in patients with MPS. The otorhinolaryngologistshould be part of the group of professionals that follows these patients to better monitor their hearing and provide early hearing rehabilitation.

scholarly journals The Bonebridge in Adults with Mixed and Conductive Hearing Loss: Audiological and Quality of Life Outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr H. Skarżyński ◽  
Anna Ratuszniak ◽  
Bartłomiej Król ◽  
Magdalena Kozieł ◽  
Kamila Osińska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Background: Considering that hearing loss has a significant impact on social functioning, everyday activity and a person’s emotional state, one of the most important goals of hearing rehabilitation with bone conduction devices is improvement in a patient’s quality of life. Objectives: To measure self-assessed quality of life in patients implanted with the Bonebridge, a bone conduction device. Method: Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with one treatment group. Twenty-one patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss were included, and each individual served as its own control. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to measure patient-reported quality of life before intervention and at 3 and 6 months after activation of the device. At the same time frames, pure-tone audiometry and speech understanding in quiet and in noise were tested. Results: Hearing-specific quality of life increased significantly after intervention and remained stable up to 6 months. Both word recognition in quiet and speech reception threshold in noise were significantly better after 6 months compared to before surgery. Outcomes of aided speech understanding were independent of initial bone conduction thresholds and equally high (word recognition score >75%) across the device’s indication range. Conclusions: The Bonebridge provides not only significant audiological benefit in both speech understanding in quiet and in noise, but also increases self-perceived quality of life in patients suffering from mixed and conductive hearing loss. Together with a very low rate and minor nature of adverse events, it is the state-of-the-art solution for hearing rehabilitation in patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss up to a bone conduction threshold of 45 dB HL.

scholarly journals Cone-Beam CT compared to Multi-slice CT for the diagnostic analysis of conductive hearing loss, a pilot study

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (S3) ◽  
pp. S188-S188
Author(s):  
Pieter Kemp ◽  
Jiska van Stralen ◽  
Pim de Graaf ◽  
Erwin Berkhout ◽  
Jan Wolff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Cone Beam Ct ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Diagnostic Analysis ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Long-term Compliance and Satisfaction With Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices in Patients With Congenital Unilateral Conductive Hearing Loss

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
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Conductive Hearing

scholarly journals Successive ipsilateral surgery of Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge devices for congenital bilateral conductive hearing loss: a case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 030006052097228
Author(s):  
Yujie Liu ◽  
Ran Ren ◽  
Shouqin Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Vibrant Soundbridge ◽  
Patient’S Experience ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document