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.
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.
Authors: Renee M Banakis Hartl; James R Easter; Mohamed A Alhussaini; Daniel J Tollin; Herman A Jenkins Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.570
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
Authors: Daniel Dejaco; David Riedl; Timo Gottfried; Thomas Rasse; Natalie Fischer; David Prejban; Viktor Koci; Herbert Riechelmann; Joachim Schmutzhard; Thomas Keintzel Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Henryk Skarżyński; Beata Dziendziel; Elżbieta Włodarczyk; Piotr H Skarżyński Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Friedrich Ihler; Jenny Blum; Max-Ulrich Berger; Bernhard G Weiss; Christian Welz; Martin Canis Journal: Trends Hear Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 3.293