Does the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Have a Complementary Effect on Audiological and Subjective Outcomes in Patients with Unilateral Conductive Hearing Loss?

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myrthe K.S. Hol ◽  
Ad F.M. Snik ◽  
Emmanuel A.M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W.R.J. Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Complementary Effect ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

An approach to bilateral bone-anchored hearing aid surgery in children: contralateral placement of sleeper fixture

2008 ◽  
Vol 123 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
J M Bernstein ◽  
P Z Sheehan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Contralateral Side ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Calvarial Bone ◽  
Optimal Position ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Conductive Hearing

AbstractObjective:Bone-anchored hearing aid surgery in younger children is a two-stage procedure, with a titanium fixture being allowed to osseointegrate for several months before an abutment is fitted through a skin graft. In the first procedure, it has been usual to place a reserve or sleeper fixture approximately 5 mm from the primary fixture as a backup in case the primary fixture fails to osseointegrate. This ipsilateral sleeper fixture is expensive, is often not used, and is placed in thinner calvarial bone where it is less likely to osseointegrate successfully. The authors have implanted the sleeper fixture on the contralateral side, with the additional objective of reducing the number of procedures for bilateral bone-anchored hearing aid implantation, providing a cost-effective use for the sleeper.Methods:The authors implanted the bone-anchored hearing aid sleeper fixture in the contralateral temporal bone instead of on the ipsilateral side in seven successive paediatric cases with bilateral conductive hearing loss requiring two-stage bone-anchored hearing aids, treated at the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, UK.Results:The seven patients ranged in age from five to 15 years, with a mean age of 10 years; in addition, a 20-year-old with learning disability was also treated. In each case, the contralateral sleeper fixture was not needed as a backup fixture, but was used in four patients (57 per cent) as the basis for a second-side bone-anchored hearing aid.Conclusions:In children with bilateral conductive hearing loss, in whom a bilateral bone-anchored hearing aid is being considered and the second side is to be operated upon at a later date, we recommend placing the sleeper fixture on the contralateral side at the time of primary first-side surgery. Our technique provides a sleeper fixture located in an optimal position, where it also offers the option of use for a second-side bone-anchored hearing aid and reduces the number of procedures needed.

Atresia and Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. 241-248
Author(s):  
Steven P. Smith ◽  
Simon Milov ◽  
Joel A. Goebel
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conductive Hearing

This case study summarizes findings in an adult male, aged 57, who presented to the Adult Audiology Clinic with aural atresia in the right ear resulting in a conductive hearing loss and a sudden sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. Treatment options included reconstruction surgery in the right ear, bone anchored hearing aid in the right ear to overcome the conductive hearing loss, bone anchored hearing aid in the left ear for single sided deafness, and intratympanic steroid injections in the left ear to salvage hearing.This case study highlights that when a patient is educated on all available options the patient is then able to make a decision comfortable to him and to help improve his hearing.

scholarly journals Salivary Gland Choristoma of the Middle Ear in a Child: A Case Report

2021 ◽  
pp. 014556132199502
Author(s):  
Jana Jančíková ◽  
Soňa Šikolová ◽  
Josef Machač ◽  
Marta Ježová ◽  
Denisa Pavlovská ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Salivary Gland ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Facial Nerve ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Salivary gland choristoma is an extremely rare middle ear pathology. We present the case of a 10-year-old girl with unilateral conductive hearing loss. Tympanotomy showed a nonspecific middle ear mass, absence of stapes, anomaly of incus, and displaced facial nerve. It was not possible to remove the mass completely. Histology confirmed salivary gland choristoma. The hearing in this case can be improved with a bone-anchored hearing aid.

The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: referrals, selection, rehabilitation, philosophy and adult results

1996 ◽  
Vol 110 (21) ◽  
pp. 13-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. R. Cooper ◽  
S. P. Burrell ◽  
R. H. Powell ◽  
D. W. Proops ◽  
J. A. Bickerton
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Questionnaire Data ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Suppurative Otitis Media ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Conductive Hearing

AbstractThe Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid team is part of the Birmingham osseointegrated programme. In the first seven years of its existence it has received 309 referrals. Twenty-six per cent had suffered a congenital conductive hearing loss and 74 per cent had an acquired conductive hearing loss; the majority secondary to chronic suppurative otitis media.This report is of 68 out of 106 adults wearing bone anchored hearing aids (BAHAs). Ninety-eight per cent showed audiological improvement with the congenital group demonstrating marginally the best freefield thresholds and speech discrimination. Questionnaire data as to the patient experience confirms the benefits especially hearing in noise, and comfort, and the vast majority were more satisfied with the bone anchored hearing aid than their previous aid.

Rehabilitation of Patients with Conductive Hearing Loss and Moderate Mental Retardation by Means of a Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 653-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia J. W. Kunst ◽  
Myrthe K. S. Hol ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Mental Retardation ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Moderate Mental Retardation ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document