Efficacy of the active middle-ear implant in patients with sensorineural hearing loss

2013 ◽  
Vol 127 (S2) ◽  
pp. S8-S16 ◽  
Author(s):  
C L Butler ◽  
P Thavaneswaran ◽  
I H Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Better Than

AbstractIntroduction:This systematic review aims to advise on the effectiveness of the active middle-ear implant in patients with sensorineural hearing loss, compared with external hearing aids.Methods:A systematic search of several electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, was used to identify relevant studies for inclusion.Results:Fourteen comparative studies were included. Nine studies reported on the primary outcome of functional gain: one found that the middle-ear implant was significantly better than external hearing aids (p < 0.001), while another found that external hearing aids were generally significantly better than middle-ear implants (p < 0.05). Six of the seven remaining studies found that middle-ear implants were better than external hearing aids, although generally no clinically significant difference (i.e. ≥10 dB) was seen.Conclusion:Generally, the active middle-ear implant appears to be as effective as the external hearing aid in improving hearing outcomes in patients with sensorineural hearing loss.

Rehabilitation of severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss with an active middle ear implant

2020 ◽  
Vol 140 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-241
Author(s):  
Maurizio Barbara ◽  
Chiara Filippi ◽  
Silvia Tarentini ◽  
Edoardo Covelli ◽  
Simonetta Monini
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implant

scholarly journals Design Study of a Round Window Piezoelectric Transducer for Active Middle Ear Implants

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 946
Author(s):  
Dong Ho Shin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Piezoelectric Transducer ◽  
Round Window ◽  
Piezoelectric Element ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Flat Band ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Output Characteristics

This report describes the design of a new piezoelectric transducer for round window (RW)-driven middle ear implants. The transducer consists of a piezoelectric element, gold-coated copper bellows, silicone elastomer (polydimethylsiloxane, PDMS), metal cylinder (tungsten), and titanium housing. The piezoelectric element is fixed to the titanium housing and mechanical resonance is generated by the interaction of the bellows, PDMS, and tungsten cylinder. The dimensions of PDMS and the tungsten cylinder with output characteristics suitable for compensation of sensorineural hearing loss were derived by mechanical vibrational analysis (equivalent mechanical model and finite element analysis (FEA)). Based on the results of FEA, the RW piezoelectric transducer was implemented, and bench tests were performed under no-load conditions to confirm the output characteristics. The transducer generates an average displacement of 219.6 nm in the flat band (0.1–1 kHz); the resonance frequency is 2.3 kHz. To evaluate the output characteristics, the response was compared to that of an earlier transducer. When driven by the same voltage (6 Vp), the flat band displacement averaged 30 nm larger than that of the other transducer, and no anti-resonance was noted. Therefore, we expect that the new transducer can serve as an output device for hearing aids, and that it will improve speech recognition and treat high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss more effectively.

Otologics Fully Implantable Hearing Device Phase II Results

2008 ◽  
Vol 139 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P57-P57
Author(s):  
Drew M Horlbeck ◽  
Herman A Jenkins ◽  
Ben J Balough ◽  
Michael E Hoffer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Device

Objective The efficacy of the Otologics Fully Implantable Hearing Device (MET) was assessed in adult patients with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss. Methods Surgical insertion of this totally implanted system was identical to the Phase I study. A repeated-measures within-subjects design assessed aided sound field thresholds and speech performances with the subject's own, appropriately fit, walk-in hearing aid(s) and the Otologics Fully Implantable Hearing Device. Results Six- and 12-month Phase II data will be presented. Ten patients were implanted and activated as part Phase II clinical trial. Three patients were lost to long term follow-up due to two coil failures and one ossicular abnormality preventing proper device placement. No significant differences between preoperative (AC = 59 dB, BC = 55 dB) and postoperative (AC = 61 dB, BC = 54 dB) unaided pure tone averages were noted (p < 0.05). Pure tone average implant aided thresholds (41 dB) were equivalent to that of walk-in-aided (37 dB) condition with no significant difference (p < 0.05) between patients’ walk-in-aided individual frequency thresholds and implant-aided thresholds. Word recognition scores and hearing in noise scores were similar between the walk-in-aided and for the implant-aided condition. Patient benefit scales will be presented at all end points. Conclusions Results of the Otologics MET Fully Implantable Hearing Device Phase II trial provide evidence that this fully implantable device is a viable alternative to currently available hearing aids in patients with sensorineural hearing loss.

A new semi-implantable middle ear implant for sensorineural hearing loss: three-years follow-up in a pilot patient’s group

2017 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurizio Barbara ◽  
Luigi Volpini ◽  
Chiara Filippi ◽  
Francesca Atturo ◽  
Simonetta Monini
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Middle Ear Implant

Comparison of Carina active middle-ear implant with conventional hearing aids for mixed hearing loss

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (4) ◽  
pp. 340-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
V A Savaş ◽  
B Gündüz ◽  
R Karamert ◽  
R Cevizci ◽  
M Düzlü ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Patient Acceptance ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Glasgow Benefit Inventory ◽  
Middle Ear Implants

AbstractObjective:To compare the auditory outcomes of Carina middle-ear implants with those of conventional hearing aids in patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss.Methods:The study comprised nine patients (six males, three females) who underwent middle-ear implantation with Carina fully implantable active middle-ear implants to treat bilateral moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss. The patients initially used conventional hearing aids and subsequently received the Carina implants. The hearing thresholds with implants and hearing aids were compared.Results:There were no significant differences between: the pre-operative and post-operative air and bone conduction thresholds (p> 0.05), the thresholds with hearing aids and Carina implants (p> 0.05), or the pre-operative (mean, 72.8 ± 19 per cent) and post-operative (mean, 69.9 ± 24 per cent) speech discrimination scores (p> 0.05). One of the patients suffered total sensorineural hearing loss three months following implantation despite an initial 38 dB functional gain. All except one patient showed clinical improvements after implantation according to quality of life questionnaire (Glasgow Benefit Inventory) scores.Conclusion:Acceptance of Carina implants is better than with conventional hearing aids in patients with mixed hearing loss, although both yield similar hearing amplification. Cosmetic reasons appear to be critical for patient acceptance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document