Literature DB >> 14501456

Rehabilitation for high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairment in adults with the symphonix vibrant soundbridge: a comparative study.

Alain Uziel1, Michel Mondain, Paul Hagen, François Dejean, Guilhem Doucet.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the benefits for patients with high-frequency hearing loss obtained from an implantable middle ear implant, the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge using the SIGNIA processing circuitry, to those derived from conventional amplification using the same integrated circuitry and to those derived from a variety of preoperatively worn hearing aids. STUDY
DESIGN: A single-subject, repeated-measures study design was used for a comparative evaluation of the benefits derived from the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge and conventional amplification. Objective audiometric measures were performed postoperatively to compare the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) and SIGNIA hearing aid, both using the SIGNIA processing chip. Tests were performed under three conditions: unaided, aided Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404), and aided SIGNIA hearing aid. Subjective self-assessment scales, standardized and nonstandardized, were completed for the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) and the preoperative hearing aid to compare the personally perceived benefits. Statistical comparison of the data sets with each device type was performed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test.
SETTING: One tertiary teaching hospital and one hearing aid specialist fitting office.
SUBJECTS: Six patients displaying a high-frequency hearing loss who had the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge implanted for an average of 17 months. INTERVENTION: Rehabilitative.
RESULTS: Aided thresholds with the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) and the SIGNIA hearing aid showed no significant difference. Speech comprehension scores in quiet and in noise were significantly improved with each device type over the unaided condition scores. Individual performance on speech test measures was equivalent or superior with the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) in comparison with that with the SIGNIA hearing aid. When using the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) in quiet, the group achieved 50% speech comprehension at significantly softer presentation levels (p = 0.027) than when wearing the SIGNIA hearing aid. Similarly, in noise, 50% speech comprehension was achieved at significantly lower (more difficult) signal-to-noise ratios (p = 0.028) with the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) than with the SIGNIA hearing aid. The level of satisfaction for various aspects of the device and performance and listening ease, particularly in the presence of aversive sounds and in reverberant conditions, was reported as significantly better with the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) than with the preoperative hearing aid.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar gain with each device type using the same SIGNIA processing technology, the patient group demonstrated significant advantages for speech comprehension in quiet and in noise when using the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404). Such an effect may be attributed to higher fidelity sound transmission by means of the direct-drive mechanism used by the implant. Subjective reports support the results from the objective assessments, both being in favor of the implant over conventional amplification. In conclusion, the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge (404) is a suitable treatment option offering advantages over conventional amplification to the hearing-impaired person with a high-frequency hearing loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14501456     DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200309000-00015

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  [Semi-implantable hearing aids for sensorineural hearing loss and combined hearing loss: experiences at the German Armed Forces Hospital in Ulm].

Authors:  M Tisch; H Maier
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.284

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.  Esteem® middle ear device versus conventional hearing aids for rehabilitation of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Simonetta Monini; Michela Biagini; Francesca Atturo; Maurizio Barbara
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Clinical predictors for satisfaction with incus vibroplasty: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Jae Joon Han; Jihye Rhee; Jae-Jin Song; Ja-Won Koo; Byung Yoon Choi
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 7.  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

8.  [Rehabilitation of high frequency hearing loss: use of an active middle ear implant].

Authors:  K Böheim; A Nahler; M Schlögel
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 9.  [Differential indication of active middle ear implants].

Authors:  K Braun; H-P Zenner; N Friese; A Tropitzsch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.284

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.