Active Middle Ear Implant Compared With Open-Fit Hearing Aid in Sloping High-Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss

被引:42
作者
Boeheim, Klaus [1 ]
Pok, Stefan-Marcel [1 ]
Schloegel, Max [1 ]
Filzmoser, Peter [2 ]
机构
[1] Landesklinikum St Poelten, Dept Otolaryngol, St Polten, Austria
[2] Vienna Univ Technol, Dept Stat & Probabil Theory, A-1040 Vienna, Austria
关键词
Active middle ear implant; High-frequency hearing loss; Open-fit hearing aid; Rehabilitation; Vibrant sound bridge; SYMPHONIX VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE; MULTICENTER; DEVICE; REHABILITATION; IMPAIRMENT; EXPERIENCE; BENEFIT;
D O I
10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181cabd42
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To compare 2 open-ear hearing solutions for sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss: open-fit hearing aid (HA) and active middle ear implant (AMEI). Study Design: Within-subjects prospective design. Setting: Tertiary referral hospital. Patients and Devices: Fourteen patients with sloping, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss were recruited from 39 patients previously implanted with an AMEI and 10 agreed to participate, ranging in age from 44 to 73 years ( mean, 59 yr). Patients were selected because their hearing thresholds (500-3,000 Hz) qualified them for both AMEI and open-fit HA use. All patients received a Vibrant Soundbridge ( Vibrant MED-EL) for an average of 25.1 months before data collection and used their AMEI on a daily basis. The open-fit HA used in this study was the Delta 8000 (Oticon). Both study devices have been fit with the specific fitting strategies as recommended by the manufacturer. Main Outcome Measures: Sound-field hearing thresholds, Freiburger monosyllabic words in quiet, speech reception thresholds for 50% correct recognition for Freiburger numbers and for Oldenburg sentences in quiet, and speech reception thresholds for 50% correct recognition for Oldenburg sentences in noise. Results: Both HA and AMEI conditions showed significantly better sound-field thresholds and speech recognition on monosyllabic word and sentence tests in quiet and in noise than in the unaided condition. A comparison of aided conditions revealed that, in the AMEI-aided condition, high-frequency audibility and speech discrimination scores in quiet and in noise were significantly better than those in the open-fit HA. Conclusion: Both open-fit HAs and AMEIs provided audiologic benefit to patients with sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. However, despite overlapping indication criteria for the 2 devices, performance with the AMEI was significantly better for the AMEI than for the open-fit HA.
引用
收藏
页码:424 / 429
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
Ball G R, 1997, Ear Nose Throat J, V76, P213
[2]  
Ball G. R., 1997, ENT-EAR NOSE THROAT, V76, P222
[3]  
Ball G. R., 1997, ENT-EAR NOSE THROAT, V76, P220
[4]  
Böheim K, 2007, HNO, V55, P690, DOI 10.1007/s00106-006-1506-4
[5]   MATURATION OF HEARING-AID BENEFIT - OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS [J].
COX, RM ;
ALEXANDER, GC .
EAR AND HEARING, 1992, 13 (03) :131-141
[6]  
DIGIOVANNI JJ, 2008, 2008 2009 HEARING AI, P89
[7]  
FABRY D, FACTS VS MYTHS SKINN
[8]   A multicenter study of the vibrant soundbridge middle ear implant:: Early clinical results and experience [J].
Fraysse, B ;
Lavieille, JP ;
Schmerber, S ;
Enée, V ;
Truy, E ;
Vincent, C ;
Vaneecloo, FM ;
Sterkers, O .
OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2001, 22 (06) :952-961
[9]  
Gan R Z, 1997, Ear Nose Throat J, V76, P297
[10]  
Gan RZ, 1997, ENT-EAR NOSE THROAT, V76