Literature DB >> 12218618

Comparison of different vibrant soundbridge audioprocessors with conventional hearing AIDS.

Ingo Todt1, Rainer Ottis Seidl, Manfred Gross, Arne Ernst.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the functional gain of different Symphonix Soundbridge audioprocessors (HF-processor and D-processor) to preoperatively fitted conventional hearing aids of patients with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss in the high-frequency range. STUDY
DESIGN: In a prospective study, the Symphonix Soundbridge (HF-processor and D-processor) fitting results were evaluated and compared with conventional hearing aids. Postoperative air and bone conductances, the functional gain of warble-tone measurements, speech audiometric, and subjective outcome testing (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire) were studied.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Five patients (ages, 54-69 yr) with mild to severe sensorineural deafness in the high-frequency range, but no progression of hearing loss during the last two years, were initially fitted with the so-called HF-processor, then subsequently fitted with the D-processor, which was a fully digital one.
RESULTS: One year after implantation of the Symphonix Soundbridge device, unchanged, stable air and bone conductances were found (except for one minor change). Over the whole frequency range (0.5-8.0 kHz), a mean gain of 16.1 dB (HF-processor), 27.1 dB (D-processor), and 15.2 dB (hearing aid) was found. The Symphonix Soundbridge device with different audioprocessors led to improved hearing in speech audiometric testing. The data show a significant improvement of hearing compared with conventional hearing aids in quiet, and a better functional gain in noise for the Symphonix Soundbridge system. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire also revealed that the implant resulted in significant differences compared with conventional hearing aids in almost all subcategories.
CONCLUSION: The Symphonix Soundbridge device can improve the hearing benefit of moderately to severely hearing handicapped patients-particularly in those with a high-frequency hearing loss-when compared with the conventional hearing aids of these patients, as evidenced by objective and subjective measurements. The Symphonix Soundbridge D-processor showed further improvements and resulted in an additional hearing benefit that was superior to that of the previously fitted HF-audioprocessor. This is owing to the refinements and upgrades in audioprocessor technology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12218618     DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200209000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  12 in total

Review 1.  The inner ear and the neurologist.

Authors:  Charlotte Agrup; Michael Gleeson; Peter Rudge
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  Minimal Reporting Standards for Active Middle Ear Hearing Implants.

Authors:  Hannes Maier; Uwe Baumann; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Dirk Beutner; Marco D Caversaccio; Thomas Keintzel; Martin Kompis; Thomas Lenarz; Astrid Magele; Torsten Mewes; Alexander Müller; Tobias Rader; Torsten Rahne; Sebastian P Schraven; Burkard Schwab; Georg Mathias Sprinzl; Bernd Strauchmann; Ingo Todt; Thomas Wesarg; Barbara Wollenberg; Stefan K Plontke
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Vibrant SoundBridge application to middle ear windows versus conventional hearing aids: a comparative study based on international outcome inventory for hearing aids.

Authors:  Ahmet Atas; Hakan Tutar; Bulent Gunduz; Yıldırım A Bayazıt
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Newer Frontiers in Hearing Rehabilitation.

Authors:  V K Singh
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

Review 5.  Systematic review to evaluate the safety, efficacy and economical outcomes of the Vibrant Soundbridge for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Karl-Ludwig Bruchhage; Anke Leichtle; Rainer Schönweiler; Ingo Todt; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Henning Frenzel; Barbara Wollenberg
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Importance of adhesiolysis in revision surgery for vibrant soundbridge device failures at the short incus process.

Authors:  Yoon Ah Park; Tae Hoon Kong; Jin Soon Chang; Young Joon Seo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Long-term functional outcome and satisfaction of patients with an active middle ear implant for sensorineural hearing loss compared to a matched population with conventional hearing aids.

Authors:  Friedrich Ihler; Julian Bewarder; Jenny Blum; Christoph Matthias; Martin Canis
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Passive and active middle ear implants.

Authors:  Dirk Beutner; Karl-Bernd Hüttenbrink
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-03-10

9.  Restoration of hearing by hearing aids: conventional hearing aids - implantable hearing aids - cochlear implants - auditory brainstem implants.

Authors:  R Leuwer; J Müller
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-09-28

10.  Benefits of active middle ear implants over hearing aids in patients with sloping high tone hearing loss: comparison with hearing aids.

Authors:  J M Lee; J H Jeon; I S Moon; J Y Choi
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.124

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.