Quality of Life With Bone Conduction Hearing Device

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Device ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing

Piezoelectric bone conduction hearing implant Osia® - audiological and quality of life benefits

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Joanna Marszał ◽  
Renata Gibasiewicz ◽  
Magdalena Błaszczyk ◽  
Maria Gawlowska ◽  
Wojciech Gawęcki
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing

Introduction: Nowadays, there are many options to treat hearing-impaired patients: tympanoplastic surgery, hearing aids and a wide range of implantable devices. Objective: The aim of this study is to present the mid-term audiological and quality of life benefits after the implantation of the Osia®, a new active piezoelectric bone conduction hearing implant. Material and methods: The state of the tissues in implanted area, as well as audiological and quality of life results were analyzed six, nine and twelve months after implantation in a group of four adult patients with bilateral mixed hearing loss. Results: In all the cases, no postoperative complications were found. One year after surgery the mean audiological gain in FF PTA4 (pure tone average for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) was 52.2±3.5 dB in comparison to the unaided situation, the mean speech understanding with Osia® in quiet was 90±8.2% for 50dB SPL, 98.8±2.5% for 65dB SPL and 100±0% for 80dB SPL, and mean speech understanding with Osia® in noise was 37.5%±23.6 for 50dB SPL, 93.8±4.8% for 65dB SPL and 98.8±2.5% for 80dB SPL. There was also an evident improvement in the quality of hearing as well as in the quality of life, measured by the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) and the SSQ (Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale). Conclusions: The Osia® is an effective treatment option for patients with bilateral mixed hearing loss. The mid-term audiological and quality of life results are excellent, but further observations including bigger groups of patients and a longer follow-up are required.

scholarly journals Effects of SoundBite Bone Conduction Hearing Aids on Speech Recognition and Quality of Life in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Qiong Luo ◽  
Ying Shen ◽  
Ting Chen ◽  
Zhong Zheng ◽  
Haibo Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Objectives. To analyze the clinical application of SoundBite bone conduction hearing aids by assessing the improvement of speech recognition and the scores of the benefit scale questionnaire for patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). Design. Nine patients aged 24 to 61 years with SSD for more than 3 months were enrolled in this study. The patients could understand and repeat Mandarin and have good compliance with the study. The measurements were evaluated before and after one month of wearing hearing aids using the pure tone audiometry threshold, speech recognition in quiet and in noise, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) benefit scale score. Results. Pure tone audiometry results showed that the average hearing threshold of good ears and bad ears was 11.4±2.6 dB HL and 89.9±6.4 dB HL, respectively. The average hearing threshold of bad ears after wearing hearing aids was 23.5±9.0 dB HL. Statistical analysis showed that the hearing improvement for the bad ears after wearing hearing aids was significant. The speech audiometry results showed that the disyllable word recognition score of the bad ears in quiet increased significantly at 50 dB SPL by 40±12 percentage points and at 65 dB SPL by 71±15 percentage points. As for the speech recognition in noise, when the signal sound came from the bad ear side and the noise from the good ear side (SSSDNAH), the speech recognition score (SRS) significantly increased by 17±6 and 9±4 at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of -2 dB and -5 dB, respectively, after wearing the hearing aids. When the signal sound came from the front of the patient and the noise from the bad ear side (S0NSSD), the SRS scores were reduced by 5±5 and 7±5 percentage points at SNR equal to -2 dB and -5 dB, which was significantly different from that before wearing the hearing aids. When the signal and noise both came from the front of the patients (S0N0), the SRS was not significantly increased by 5±4 percentage points at SNR equal to -2 dB compared to before wearing hearing aids. However, the SRS was significantly increased by 5±2 percentage points at SNR equal to -5 dB compared to before wearing hearing aids. The average total GBI score was 31±12 for the nine patients, with an average score of 32±10, 31±8, and 30±7 for general conditions, social support, and physical health, respectively. The results of the questionnaires showed that patients’ quality of life was improved after wearing SoundBite bone conduction hearing aids. Conclusions. SoundBite bone conduction hearing aids are a good choice for patients with SSD, as it could improve the speech recognition ability of patients both in a quiet and noisy environment and improves the quality of life after wearing hearing aids.

scholarly journals Long-Term Outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery vs. Linear Incision Technique With Soft Tissue Preservation for Installation of Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben M. Strijbos ◽  
Louise V. Straatman ◽  
Tim G. A. Calon ◽  
Martin L. Johansson ◽  
Arthur J. G. de Bruijn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Tissue Preservation ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Implant Stability Quotient ◽  
Incision Technique

Objective: Comparing the surgical outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique with the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation (LITT-P) for bone conduction devices after a follow-up of 22 months.Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, there was the inclusion of 64 adult patients eligible for unilateral surgery. There was 1:1 randomization to the MIPS (test) or the LITT-P (control) group. The primary outcome was an (adverse) soft tissue reaction. Secondary outcomes were pain, loss of sensibility, soft tissue height/overgrowth, skin sagging, implant loss, Implant Stability Quotient measurements, cosmetic scores, and quality of life questionnaires.Results: Sixty-three subjects were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. No differences were found in the presence of (adverse) soft tissue reactions during complete follow-up. Also, there were no differences in pain, wound dehiscence, skin level, soft tissue overgrowth, and overall quality of life. Loss of sensibility (until 3-month post-surgery), cosmetic scores, and skin sagging outcomes were better in the MIPS group. The Implant Stability Quotient was higher after the LITT-P for different abutment lengths at various points of follow-up. Implant extrusion was nonsignificantly higher after the MIPS (15.2%) compared with LITT-P (3.3%).Conclusion: The long-term results show favorable outcomes for both techniques. The MIPS is a promising technique with some benefits over the LITT-P. Concerns regarding nonsignificantly higher implant loss may be overcome with future developments and research.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02438618.

scholarly journals Quality of Life in Children with Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2019 ◽  
Vol 162 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evette A. Ronner ◽  
Liliya Benchetrit ◽  
Patricia Levesque ◽  
Razan A. Basonbul ◽  
Michael S. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pedsql 4.0 ◽  
Hearing Device ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal

Objective To assess quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) with the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (PedsQL 4.0) and the Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life 26 (HEAR-QL-26) and HEAR-QL-28 surveys. Study Design Prospective longitudinal study. Setting Tertiary care center. Subjects and Methods Surveys were administered to patients with SNHL (ages 2-18 years) from July 2016 to December 2018 at a multidisciplinary hearing loss clinic. Patients aged >7 years completed the HEAR-QL-26, HEAR-QL-28, and PedsQL 4.0 self-report tool, while parents completed the PedsQL 4.0 parent proxy report for children aged ≤7 years. Previously published data from children with normal hearing were used for controls. The independent t test was used for analysis. Results In our cohort of 100 patients, the mean age was 7.7 years (SD, 4.5): 62 participants had bilateral SNHL; 63 had mild to moderate SNHL; and 37 had severe to profound SNHL. Sixty-eight patients used a hearing device. Mean (SD) total survey scores for the PedsQL 4.0 (ages 2-7 and 8-18 years), HEAR-QL-26 (ages 7-12 years), and HEAR-QL-28 (ages 13-18 years) were 83.9 (14.0), 79.2 (11.1), 81.2 (9.8), and 77.5 (11.3), respectively. Mean QOL scores for patients with SNHL were significantly lower than those for controls on the basis of previously published normative data ( P < .0001). There was no significant difference in QOL between children with unilateral and bilateral SNHL or between children with SNHL who did and did not require a hearing device. Low statistical power due to small subgroup sizes limited our analysis. Conclusion It is feasible to collect QOL data from children with SNHL in a hearing loss clinic. Children with SNHL had significantly lower scores on validated QOL instruments when compared with peers with normal hearing.

An Implantable Bone-Conduction Hearing Device

1992 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 283-292
Author(s):  
Robert Johnson ◽  
Mary Meikle ◽  
Jack Vernon ◽  
Alexander Schleuning
Keyword(s):  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Device ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document