Next-Day Loading of a Bone-Anchored Hearing System: Preliminary Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (3) ◽  
pp. 582-587
Author(s):  
John T. McElveen ◽  
J. Douglas Green ◽  
Moises A. Arriaga ◽  
William H. Slattery
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Skin Irritation ◽  
Tissue Reaction ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Glasgow Benefit Inventory ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Hearing Device ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Objectives To demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy for next-day loading of a percutaneous bone-anchored hearing device. Study Design Multicenter prospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary neurotologic referral centers. Subject and Methods In this multicenter prospective study, a 4.5-mm laser-etched bone-anchored hearing device was implanted in adult subjects who had conductive/mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. One day following implantation, the surgical site was assessed for soft tissue reaction per the Holgers Scale, and implant stability was evaluated by manual palpation and resonance frequency analysis. On the same day, subjects were fitted with the processor. Follow-up evaluations were at 1 week, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaires were completed postoperatively. Results Fourteen devices were implanted in 12 subjects. Two subjects underwent bilateral implantation. Implant stability was rated as firm at every interval for all ears, and the Implant Stability Quotient values at 3 months were stable or increased as compared with day 1 measurements. Skin irritation was limited to Holgers grade 0 and 1, with the majority having no skin irritation. The mean Glasgow Benefit Inventory global score was +43.8, and the mean Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit global benefit score was 60.2%. All 14 implants have remained firmly anchored. Conclusions Next-day loading of this 4.5-mm-diameter percutaneous bone-anchored hearing device appears to be a feasible alternative to the original 3-month delayed loading. Although this is a preliminary study, the results support continued investigation of a next-day loading strategy.

Outcomes after Application of Active Bone Conducting Implants

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonor Koro ◽  
Mimmi Werner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Hearing Gain ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Glasgow Benefit Inventory ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Background: A bone conducting implant is a treatment option for individuals with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL, MHL) who do not tolerate regular hearing aids, and for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). An active bone conducting implant (ABCI) was introduced in 2012 with indication in CHL, MHL, and SSD, and it is still the only ABCI available. With complete implantation of the active transducer and consequent intact skin, a decrease in infections, skin overgrowth, and implant losses, all common disadvantages with earlier passive bone conducting implants, could be expected. Our Ear, Nose and Throat Department, a secondary care center for otosurgery that covers a population of approximately 365,000 inhabitants, was approved to implant ABCIs in 2012. Objectives: Our aim was to conduct an evaluation of audiological and subjective outcomes after ABCIs. Method: A cohort study with retrospective and prospective data collection was performed.The first 20 consecutive patients operated with an ABCI were asked for informed consent. The main outcome measures werepure tone and speech audiometry and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). Results: Seventeen patients accepted to participate and 15 were able to complete all parts. Six patients had CHL or MHL. In this group the pure tone audiometry tests are comparable with an average functional hearing gain of 29.8 dB HL. With bilateral hearing, the mean Word Recognition Score (WRS) in noise was 35.7% unaided and 62.7% aided. Ten patients had the indication SSD. With the hearing ear blocked, the pure tone average was >101 dB HL, compared to 29.3 dB HL in sound field aided. With bilateral hearing, the mean WRS in noise was 59.7% unaided and 72.8% aided. The mean of the total GBI score was 42.1 in the group with CHL or MHL and 20.6 in the group with SSD. Conclusions: The patients benefit from their implants in terms of quality of life, and there is a substantial hearing gain from the implant for patients with conductive or MHL. Patients with SSD benefit less from the implant than other diagnoses but the positive outcomes are comparable to other options for this group.

Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 251-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaëlle Leterme ◽  
Daniele Bernardeschi ◽  
Anissa Bensemman ◽  
Cyrille Coudert ◽  
Jean-Jacques Portal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Glasgow Benefit Inventory ◽  
Effective Option ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

The aim of this study was to compare a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid to a transcutaneous bone-anchored device in the same conditions. This prospective crossover study included 18 adult patients with a single-sided deafness (SSD). After a trial period of 60 days with CROS and 7 days with a transcutaneous bone-anchored device (Alpha 1®, Sophono, Boulder, Colo., USA) on a headband, 13 (72%) patients opted for Alpha 1, 2 patients for CROS, and 3 rejected both rehabilitation methods. Clinical tolerance, satisfaction, hearing performances (pure-tone audiometry, speech test in quiet and in noise, stereo audiometry, sound localization, and Hearing in Noise Test), and quality of life (Glasgow Benefit Inventory, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaires) were measured at 3 and 12 months after the implantation. Both devices improved equally the hearing in noise and the quality of life. Transcutaneous devices represent an effective option in SSD.

Successful bone-anchored hearing aid implantation in a patient with osteogenesis imperfecta

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (11) ◽  
pp. 1133-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
M B Coutinho ◽  
C Marques ◽  
G J Mendes ◽  
C Gonçalves
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Osteogenesis Imperfecta ◽  
Frequency Analysis ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Resonance Frequency Analysis ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Type Iii ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid

AbstractObjective:To report a case of successful bone-anchored hearing aid implantation in an adult patient with type III osteogenesis imperfecta, which is commonly regarded as a contraindication to this procedure.Case report:A 45-year-old man with type III osteogenesis imperfecta presented with mixed hearing loss. There was a mild sensorineural component in both ears, with an air–bone gap between 45 and 50 dB HL. He was implanted with a bone-anchored hearing aid. The audiological outcome was good, with no complications and good implant stability (as measured by resonance frequency analysis).Conclusion:To our knowledge, this is the first recorded case of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation in a patient with osteogenesis imperfecta.

Hearing Aid Consumer Reviews: A Linguistic Analysis in Relation to Benefit and Satisfaction Ratings

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 761-768
Author(s):  
Vinaya Manchaiah ◽  
De Wet Swanepoel ◽  
Abram Bailey ◽  
James W. Pennebaker ◽  
Rebecca J. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Linguistic Analysis ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Linguistic Variables ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
Consumer Reviews ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Device ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Purpose Online reviews have been used by hearing aid owners to share their experiences and to provide suggestions to potential hearing aid buyers, although they have not been systematically examined. The study was aimed at examining the hearing aid consumer reviews using automated linguistic analysis, and how the linguistic variables relate to self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction ratings. Method The study used a cross-sectional design. One thousand three hundred seventy-eight consumer hearing aid reviews (i.e., text response to open-ended question), self-reported benefit and satisfaction ratings on hearing aids in a 5-point scale with meta-data (e.g., hearing aid brand, technology level) extracted from the Hearing Tracker website were analyzed using automated text analysis method known as the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Results Self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction ratings were high (i.e., mean rating of 4.04 in a 5-point scale). Examining the association between overall rating and the key linguistic variables point to two broad findings. First, the more people were personally, socially, and emotionally engaged with the hearing device experience, the higher they rated their hearing device(s). Second, a minimal occurrence of clinic-visit language dimensions points to factors that likely affect benefit and satisfaction ratings. For example, if people mention paying too much money (money), their overall ratings are generally lower. Conversely, if people write about their health or home, the ratings were higher. There was no significant difference in linguistic analysis across different hearing aid brands and technology levels. Conclusions Hearing aid consumers are generally satisfied with their hearing device(s), and their online reviews contain information about social/emotional dimensions as well as clinic-visit related aspects that have bearing toward hearing aid benefit and satisfaction ratings. These results suggest that the natural language used by consumers provide insights on their perceived benefit/satisfaction from their hearing device.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

scholarly journals Review of Bone Conduction Hearing Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-219
Author(s):  
Susan E. Ellsperman ◽  
Emily M. Nairn ◽  
Emily Z. Stucken
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Sound Transmission ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Bone conduction is an efficient pathway of sound transmission which can be harnessed to provide hearing amplification. Bone conduction hearing devices may be indicated when ear canal pathology precludes the use of a conventional hearing aid, as well as in cases of single-sided deafness. Several different technologies exist which transmit sound via bone conduction. Here, we will review the physiology of bone conduction, the indications for bone conduction amplification, and the specifics of currently available devices.

A Clinical Perspective on Cochlear Dead Regions: Intelligibility of Speech and Subjective Hearing Aid Benefit

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (08) ◽  
pp. 600-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill E. Preminger ◽  
Ryan Carpenter ◽  
Craig H. Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Clinical Perspective ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Cochlear Dead Regions ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Using the threshold equalizing noise (TEN) test, 49 subjects with at least two pure-tone thresholds per ear greater than 50 dB HL and none greater than 80 dB HL were evaluated for the presence or absence of dead regions. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the prevalence of cochlear dead regions in this clinical population, (2) measure whether listeners with dead regions performed differently than listeners without dead regions on a speech intelligibility in noise test, and (3) determine whether cochlear dead regions are associated with reduced subjective hearing aid performance. The results showed that (1) twenty-nine percent of the subjects tested positive for dead regions, (2) listeners with dead regions had poorer sentence understanding in noise than listeners without dead regions and (3) listeners with dead regions perceived poorer subjective hearing aid performance in listening environments with reverberation or background noise as compared to those without dead regions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document