scholarly journals On the Effect of Bimodal Rehabilitation in Asymmetric Hearing Loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 3927
Author(s):  
Simonetta Monini ◽  
Chiara Filippi ◽  
Alessandra De Luca ◽  
Gerardo Salerno ◽  
Maurizio Barbara
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss

Background: Bone conductive implants (BCI) have been reported to provide greater beneficial effects for the auditory and perceptual functions of the contralateral ear in patients presenting with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) compared to those with single-sided deafness (SSD). The aim of the study was to assess the effects of wearing a conventional hearing aid in the contralateral ear on BCI in terms of an improved overall auditory performance. Methods: eleven AHL subjects wearing a BCI in their worse hearing ear underwent an auditory evaluation by pure tone and speech audiometry in free field. This study group was obtained by adding to the AHL patients those SSD subjects that, during the follow-up, showed deterioration of the hearing threshold of the contralateral ear, thus presenting with the features of AHL. Four different conditions were tested and compared: unaided, with BCI only, with contralateral hearing aid (CHA) only and with BCI combined with CHA. Results: all of the prosthetic conditions caused a significant improvement with respect to the unaided condition. When a CHA was adopted, its combination with the BCI showed significantly better auditory performances than those achieved with the BCI only. Conclusions: the present study suggests the beneficial role of a CHA in BCI-implanted AHL subjects in terms of overall auditory performance.

Binaural Perception in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users with Unrestricted or Restricted Acoustic Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Dorbeau ◽  
John Galvin ◽  
Qian-Jie Fu ◽  
Elsa Legris ◽  
Mathieu Marx ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Tinnitus Severity ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acoustic Hearing ◽  
Speech Cues ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Speech Reception Thresholds ◽  
One Year ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Cochlear implantation (CI) can benefit patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) in terms of sound localization, speech understanding in noise, tinnitus severity, and quality of life (QoL). In previous studies, CI outcomes have been largely reported for SSD patients with normal “unrestricted” hearing in the contralateral ear. However, SSD patients may often have some degree of hearing loss in the contralateral ear (“restricted” acoustic hearing). In this study, we report results from a French clinical trial for CI in in SSD patients (NCT02204618). Localization, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise, tinnitus severity, and QoL were evaluated in 18 SSD patients 1 year after CI. Data were analyzed for 2 subject groups according to the pure-tone average thresholds in the non-implanted ear: unrestricted acoustic hearing (UNRES; ≤25 dB HL; n = 10) and restricted acoustic hearing (RES; > 25 dB HL; n = 8). Across all subjects, localization was significantly better with the CI on than off (p = 0.005); there was no significant difference between subject groups (p = 0.301). When speech and noise were co-located (S0N0), there was no significant difference in SRTs with the CI on or off (p = 0.480); SRTs were significantly better for the UNRES than for the RES group (p = 0.005). When speech and noise were spatially separated (SCINNH), SRTs were significantly better with the CI on than off (p < 0.001). While SRTs were better for the UNRES than for the RES group (p = 0.024), the CI benefit was more than 50% greater for the RES group due to the restoration of high-frequency speech cues. Questionnaire data showed that tinnitus severity was significantly reduced (p = 0.045) and QoL was significantly improved after one year of experience with the CI (p < 0.001). Age at testing was significantly correlated with SRTs for the S0N0 condition; duration of deafness was correlated with SRTs for the SCINNH condition. There were relatively few correlations between behavioral and subjective measures, suggesting that both were valuable when assessing CI benefits for SSD patients. The present data suggest that indications for CI should be expanded to include unilaterally deaf patients who have normal hearing or mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the non-implanted ear.

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
Fitting Procedures ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit.MethodThis prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study.ResultsNo differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization.ConclusionOur results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

Treatment choice in single‐sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss. A prospective, multi‐center cohort study on 155 patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Marx ◽  
Isabelle Mosnier ◽  
Christophe Vincent ◽  
Nicolas‐Xavier Bonne ◽  
David Bakhos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Treatment Choice ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss

scholarly journals Treatment of Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss in Adults

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (S3) ◽  
pp. S111-S111
Author(s):  
Susan Arndt ◽  
Frederike Hassepass ◽  
Thomas Wesarg ◽  
Antje Aschendorff ◽  
Roland Laszig
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss

Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss

HNO ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (S2) ◽  
pp. 98-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Arndt ◽  
R. Laszig ◽  
A. Aschendorff ◽  
F. Hassepass ◽  
R. Beck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss ◽  
Implant Treatment

scholarly journals Audiological Performance of ADHEAR Systems in Simulated Conductive Hearing Loss: A Case Series with a Review of the Existing Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-546
Author(s):  
Enrico Muzzi ◽  
Valeria Gambacorta ◽  
Ruggero Lapenna ◽  
Giulia Pizzamiglio ◽  
Sara Ghiselli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Implant ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Loudness Summation

A new non-invasive adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ABCD) has been proposed as an alternative solution for reversible bilateral conductive hearing loss in recurrent or long-lasting forms of otitis media with effusion (OME) in children that cannot undergo surgical treatment. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of ABCD in children with OME. Twelve normal-hearing Italian-speaking volunteers, in whom a conductive hearing loss was simulated, participated in the study. The free-field average hearing threshold was determined and, to evaluate binaural hearing skills, loudness summation and the squelch effect were assessed. Five conditions were tested: (1) unaided without earplugs, (2) unaided with bilateral earplugs, (3) aided right ear with bilateral earplugs, (4) aided left ear with bilateral earplugs, and (5) bilateral aid with bilateral earplugs. Post-hoc analysis showed a significant statistical difference between plugged, unplugged, and each aided condition. The main results were a better loudness summation and a substantial improvement of the squelch effect in the bilaterally aided. Our results suggest that ABCD is a valid treatment for patients with conductive hearing loss that cannot undergo bone conduction implant surgery. It is also important to consider bilateral aids in order to deal with situations in which binaural hearing is fundamental.

Audiologic Management of a Patient with a Sudden Hearing Loss and Vestibular Schwannoma in the Contralateral Ear

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (03) ◽  
pp. 210-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Schaedler ◽  
David Hawkins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Vestibular Schwannoma ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Incidental Finding ◽  
Sudden Hearing Loss ◽  
Sudden Onset ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Para Determinar

The case of a 59-year-old male with a sudden-onset sensorineural hearing loss in one ear and an incidental finding of an intracanalicular vestibular schwannoma in the contralateral, normally hearing ear is reported. The patient was successfully fitted with a hearing aid in the ear with the sudden hearing loss, which notably had very poor word recognition. The questionable value of word-recognition scores in determining hearing aid candidacy is discussed. The importance of considering nonaudiologic factors in determining hearing aid candidacy is also highlighted. Se reporta el caso de una mujer de 59 años de edad con una hipoacusia sensorineural de inicio súbito en un oído, y el hallazgo incidental de un schwanoma vestibular intracanalicular en el oído contralateral con audición normal. Al paciente se le adaptó exitosamente un auxiliar auditivo en el oído con la hipoacusia súbita, que notablemente tenía un reconocimiento de palabras muy pobre. Se discute el cuestionable valor de los puntajes de reconocimiento de palabras para determinar la candidatura a un auxiliar auditivo. También se destaca la importancia de considerar los factores no audiológicos a la hora de determinar la candidatura para un auxiliar auditivo.

Considerations for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients With Unilateral or Asymmetric Hearing Loss: Assessment, Device Fitting, and Habilitation

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Greaver ◽  
Hannah Eskridge ◽  
Holly F. B. Teagle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Loss Assessment ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss ◽  
Case Basis ◽  
Moderate Hearing Loss

Purpose The purpose of this clinical report is to present case studies of children who are nontraditional candidates for cochlear implantation because they have significant residual hearing in 1 ear and to describe outcomes and considerations for their audiological management and habilitation. Method Case information is presented for 5 children with profound hearing loss in 1 ear and normal or mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the opposite ear and who have undergone unilateral cochlear implantation. Pre- and postoperative assessments were performed per typical clinic routines with modifications described. Postimplant habilitation was customized for each recipient using a combination of traditional methods, newer technologies, and commercial materials. Results The 5 children included in this report are consistent users of their cochlear implants and demonstrate speech recognition in the implanted ear when isolated from the better hearing ear. Conclusions Candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation are evolving. Children with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss who have traditionally not been considered candidates for cochlear implantation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Audiological management of these recipients is not vastly different compared with children who are traditional cochlear implant recipients. Assessment and habilitation techniques must be modified to isolate the implanted ear to obtain accurate results and to provide meaningful therapeutic intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document