Literature DB >> 12438853

Middle ear electromagnetic semi-implantable hearing device: results of the phase II SOUNDTEC direct system clinical trial.

J V D Hough1, Pamela Matthews, Mark W Wood, R Kent Dyer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of the SOUNDTEC Direct System, a partially implantable electromagnetic middle ear hearing device. STUDY
DESIGN: Food and Drug Administration Phase II clinical trial of 103 patients at 10 sites across the United States.
SETTING: Tertiary referral medical centers. PATIENTS: Individuals with bilateral moderate to moderately severe sensorineural hearing impairment who had worn optimally fit hearing aids for at least 45 days.
INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic intervention included implantation of a 27-mg neodymium iron boron magnet encased in a laser-welded titanium canister onto the incudostapedial joint, followed, after a 10-week healing period, by fitting with a deep earmold coil assembly and activation of the sound processor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional gain, speech recognition in quiet and noise, articulation index scores, perceived aided benefit, sound quality judgments, satisfaction, and presence of feedback and occlusion with the Direct System were compared with those of the patients' optimally fit hearing aid.
RESULTS: The results of this multicenter clinical trial were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on April 13, 2001, and are presented here. The results with the use of the SOUNDTEC Direct System compared with an optimally fit hearing aid provided an average 7.9-dB increase in functional gain in the speech frequencies (500-4,000 Hz) and a 9.6 dB gain in high frequencies (2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hz). There was a statistically significant average increase of 5.3% in speech discrimination. The mean speech perception in noise test score was improved, but the improvement was not statistically significant. Subjective tests using abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit and the Hough Ear Institute Profile demonstrated scores statistically improved over the hearing aid condition. These subjective tests measured areas such as the presence of occlusion and feedback, speech quality judgments, device preference, and perceived aided benefit.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Phase II clinical trial demonstrate that the SOUNDTEC Direct System provided statistically significant reduction in feedback and occlusive effect as well as a statistically significant improvement in all the following categories: functional gain, articulation index scores, speech discrimination in quiet, perceived aided benefit, patient satisfaction and device preference over the patient's optimally fit hearing aid.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12438853     DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200211000-00015

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


  12 in total

1.  A micro-drive hearing aid: a novel non-invasive hearing prosthesis actuator.

Authors:  Peyton Elizabeth Paulick; Mark W Merlo; Hossein Mahboubi; Hamid R Djalilian; Mark Bachman
Journal:  Biomed Microdevices       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.838

2.  Comparisons of electromagnetic and piezoelectric floating-mass transducers in human cadaveric temporal bones.

Authors:  Il-Yong Park; Yoshitaka Shimizu; Kevin N O'Connor; Sunil Puria; Jin-Ho Cho
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  [Integration of the active middle ear implant Vibrant Soundbridge in total auricular reconstruction].

Authors:  B Wollenberg; M Beltrame; R Schönweiler; E Gehrking; S Nitsch; A Steffen; H Frenzel
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 4.  Middle ear implantable hearing devices: an overview.

Authors:  David S Haynes; Jadrien A Young; George B Wanna; Michael E Glasscock
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-09

5.  Factors associated with benefit of active middle ear implants compared to conventional hearing aids.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; William B Clinkscales; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Shaun A Nguyen; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  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

7.  Reconstruction of middle ear malformations.

Authors:  Konrad Schwager
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2008-03-14

8.  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

Review 9.  Implantable and semi-implantable hearing AIDS: a review of history, indications, and surgery.

Authors:  Aline Gomes Bittencourt; Patrick Rademaker Burke; Isabela de Souza Jardim; Rubens de Brito; Robinson Koji Tsuji; Anna Carolina de Oliveira Fonseca; Ricardo Ferreira Bento
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-04-09

Review 10.  Implantable hearing devices.

Authors:  Matthias Tisch
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-12-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.