A Review on Possibilities of Hearing Loss and Implantable Hearing Devices for Teenagers

Author(s):  
K. Lalitha ◽  
S. Varadhaganapathy ◽  
S. Santhoshi ◽  
D. Rajesh Kumar
Keyword(s):  
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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-142
Author(s):  
Mohan Kameswaran ◽  
S Raghunandhan

Abstract Hearing aids are the principal means of auditory rehabilitation for patients with moderate to severe sensori-neural hearing loss. Although technical improvements and modifications have improved the fidelity of conventional aids, hearing aids still have many limitations including the inherent self consciousness and social stigma attached to visible hearing aids. The recently introduced totally implantable hearing aids offer patients with hearing loss several potential advantages over conventional hearing aids. This article reviews the indications, surgical procedure, advantages and the current status of totally implantable hearing devices.


2017 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 859-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinaya Manchaiah ◽  
Brian Taylor ◽  
Ashley Dockens ◽  
Nicole Tran ◽  
Kayla Lane ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (04) ◽  
pp. 381-388
Author(s):  
Karen A. Gordon ◽  
Blake C. Papsin ◽  
Vicky Papaioannou ◽  
Sharon L. Cushing

AbstractChildren with hearing loss require early access to sound in both ears to support their development. In this article, we describe barriers to providing bilateral hearing and developmental consequences of delays during early sensitive periods. Barriers include late identification of hearing loss in one or both ears and delayed access to intervention with hearing devices such as cochlear implants. Effects of delayed bilateral input on the auditory pathways and brain are discussed as well as behavioral effects on speech perception and other developmental outcomes including language and academics. Evidence for these effects has supported an evolution in cochlear implant candidacy in children that was started with unilateral implantation in children with profound deafness bilaterally to bilateral implantation to implantation of children with asymmetric hearing loss including children with single-side deafness. Opportunities to enhance the developmental benefits of bilateral hearing in children with hearing loss are also discussed including efforts to improve binaural/spatial hearing and consideration of concurrent vestibular deficits which are common in children with hearing loss.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Nina Wardenga ◽  
Victoria Diedrich ◽  
Bernd Waldmann ◽  
Thomas Lenarz ◽  
Hannes Maier

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to determine the fraction of patients with mixed hearing loss who can or cannot expect benefit from power hearing aids (HAs) after stapes surgery. Design: The audiological outcome of 374 stapes surgeries was used to calculate the patients’ individual postoperative requirements in terms of gain and output of HAs. These requirements were compared to the available gain and output provided by state-of-the-art power HAs at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz. According to these comparisons, ears were divided into three groups. For G0, required gain and output lay within the corresponding technical limits of the HAs at all frequencies. In G1, one or both requirements could not be fulfilled at 1 frequency. G2 combined all ears where the requirements lay beyond the HA’s technical limitations at 2 or more frequencies. Results: Stapes surgery resulted in an improvement of air-bone gap (ABG) in 84.5% of the cases by 15.7 dB on average. Based on pure-tone average (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz), 40.6% of all cases showed an ABG ≤10 dB. 44.9% of all cases did no longer need a HA after stapes surgery. A power HA would fulfill both audiological criteria at all 4 frequencies in 81.6% of cases that needed a HA postoperatively. However, 18.4% would not be sufficiently treatable at 1 or more frequencies (15.0% in G1, 3.4% in G2). Conclusions: The present study identified a subset of patients with mixed hearing loss after stapes surgery that cannot be treated sufficiently with available power HAs. As the residual ABG is an important reason for this lack of treatment success, the advancement of alternative hearing devices that circumvent the middle ear, such as powerful active middle ear implants, is indicated.


2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (9) ◽  
pp. 582-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rupan Banga ◽  
Jayesh Doshi ◽  
Anne Child ◽  
Elizabeth Pendleton ◽  
Andrew Reid ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document