Literature DB >> 15793407

Experience with the SOUNDTEC implantable hearing aid.

Herbert Silverstein1, James Atkins, Jack H Thompson, Nancy Gilman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, morbidity, and patient satisfaction of the SOUNDTEC semi-implantable hearing aid. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective case review.
SETTING: Two tertiary referral centers (the Silverstein Institute and the Atkins Institute). PATIENTS: Sixty-four (four bilateral placements) patients with bilateral moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss: 47 patients had previously worn hearing aids.
INTERVENTIONS: After separating the incudostapedial joint, a magnet encased in a titanium canister with a ring was introduced onto the stapes neck. Gelfoam or adipose tissue was used to stabilize the magnet. After 3 months, the external processor was fitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At 1 month, audiometric testing was performed and functional gain was assessed. Patient acceptance and implant performance were measured by a visual analogue questionnaire.
RESULTS: The device produced an average functional gain of 26 dB. Fifty-five percent of patients complained of magnet movement; this was eliminated in 80% of Silverstein Institute patients when the external processor was worn and fat was used to stabilize the magnet.
CONCLUSION: The SOUNDTEC direct device is well tolerated in the majority of patients, with a significant increase in functional gain. Magnet instability and noise were the most frequent complaints and improved with processor placement and anchoring the magnet with fat. This electromagnetic semi-implantable hearing aid confers greater functional gain over conventional hearing aids and reduces occlusion effect and feedback.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15793407     DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200503000-00014

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


  8 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.  [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 3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  Implantable hearing devices.

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

7.  The development of active middle ear implants: A historical perspective and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Melodi Koşaner Kließ; Arne Ernst; Jan Wagner; Philipp Mittmann
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-10-06

8.  A New Type of Wireless Transmission Based on Digital Direct Modulation for Use in Partially Implantable Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Jong-Hoon Kim; Jin-Ho Cho; Ki-Woong Seong; Myoung-Nam Kim
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 3.576

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.