The Use of a Novel, Nonsurgical Bone Conduction Hearing Aid System for the Treatment of Conductive Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 948-955
Author(s):  
Jafri Kuthubutheen ◽  
Chris Broadbent ◽  
Roberta Marino ◽  
Dayse Távora-Vieira
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Experience with a subcutaneous implantable bone conduction hearing aid (Xomed Audiant) in a district general hospital

1991 ◽  
Vol 105 (10) ◽  
pp. 828-831
Author(s):  
Edward Whitehead
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Important Advance ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Conductive Hearing

AbstractPatients with a conductive hearing loss may find conventional hearing aids unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. Efforts to overcome some of these difficulties have led to the development of the osteointegrated hearing aid.Implantable bone conduction hearing aids are an important advance in the treatment of well selected patients. Only 18 patients, who have been implanted with the Xomed Audiant bone conduction hearing aid, have so far been reported on in the UK. This report concerns a further six patients who have been implanted in one centre.Five of these patients continue to use their Audiant hearing aid 14 to 24 months after being fitted. They regard it to have significant advantages over their previous hearing aids. Four of the five patients use an ear level processor.Two of the patients who had previously used conventional bone conduction hearing aids now use the ear level processor.

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.

Preoperative Headband Assessment for Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing Devices in Conductive Hearing Loss

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. e58-e62 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Rainsbury ◽  
Blair A. Williams ◽  
Mark Gulliver ◽  
David P. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Conductive Hearing

scholarly journals Vibrant Soundbridge and Bone Conduction Hearing Aid in Patients with Bilateral Malformation of External Ear

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 034-038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Mondelli ◽  
Thais Mariano ◽  
Heitor Honório ◽  
Rubens Brito
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
External Ear ◽  
Vibrant Soundbridge ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid

Introduction Hearing loss is the most common clinical finding in patients with malformation of the external ear canal. Among the possibilities of treatment, there is the adaptation of hearing aids by bone conduction and the adaptation of implantable hearing aids. Objective To assess speech perception with the use of Vibrant Soundbridge (VBS - MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) associated with additional amplification in patients with bilateral craniofacial malformation. Method We evaluated 11 patients with bilateral malformation over 12 years with mixed hearing loss or bilateral conductive. They were using the Softband (Oticon Medical, Sweden) and bone conduction hearing aid in the ear opposite the one with the VSB. We performed the evaluation of speech perception using the Hearing in Noise Test. Results Participants were eight men and three women with a mean of 19.5 years. The signal / noise ratio presented significant results in patients fitted with VSB and bone conduction hearing aid. Conclusion The results of speech perception were significantly better with use of VBS combined with bone conduction hearing aids.

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.

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