Literature DB >> 22472615

Audiological and subjective benefit results in bone-anchored hearing device users.

Maria Soledad Boleas-Aguirre1, Maria Dolores Bulnes Plano, Iñigo Ruiz de Erenchun Lasa, Berta Ibáñez Beroiz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Audiological and subjective benefits in adult bone-anchored hearing device users. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight adult subjects fitted with unilateral bone-anchored hearing device.
INTERVENTIONS: Audiometric measurements included sound-field pure-tone and speech audiometries (speech reception threshold, maximum speech discrimination). Subjective benefit was assessed by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire. Ipsilateral and contralateral hearing loss was considered. Comparison was drawn between Compact, Divino, and Intenso processors. MAIN OUTCOME: To compare sound-field pure-tone and speech audiometries and APHAB results with and without the device adjusted for the unaided results.
RESULTS: With the device, sound-field pure-tone audiometry results revealed an increase gain in all frequencies. Sound-field speech audiometry showed that the mean threshold of speech recognition was 20 dB lower, maximum discrimination was attained at 5 dB less, and percentage of maximum discrimination increased by 5%. Scores in the APHAB questionnaire decreased except for the aversiveness subscale. Auditory-adjusted gain showed greater benefit in subjects with ipsilateral conductive hearing loss.Subjects with contralateral normal hearing or conductive hearing loss showed greater improvement that those with contralateral mixed or sensorineural hearing loss. There were no differences between Compact, Divino and Intenso processors.
CONCLUSION: When comparisons are adjusted for unaided condition, the bone-anchored hearing device provided auditory and subjective benefit in subjects with ipsilateral conductive hearing loss and contralateral normal hearing or conductive hearing loss. It gave marginal benefit in ipsilateral mixed and contralateral mixed or sensorineural hearing loss. No differences were found between the Compact, Intenso, and Divino processors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22472615     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31824b76f1

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


  5 in total

1.  [First audiological results of the concha-worn bone conduction instrument C.A.I. BC811].

Authors:  T Giere; S Busch; T Lenarz; H Maier
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  The location of the mastoid portion of the facial nerve in patients with congenital aural atresia.

Authors:  Yaoyao Fu; Peidong Dai; Tianyu Zhang
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Surgical, functional and audiological evaluation of new Baha(®) Attract system implantations.

Authors:  Wojciech Gawęcki; Olgierd Maciej Stieler; Andrzej Balcerowiak; Dariusz Komar; Renata Gibasiewicz; Michał Karlik; Joanna Szyfter-Harris; Maciej Wróbel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  The Prediction of Speech Recognition in Noise With a Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing System by External Bone Conduction Stimulation With Headband: A Prospective Study.

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

5.  Retrospective analysis of skin complications related to bone-anchored hearing aid implant: association with surgical technique, quality of life, and audiological benefit.

Authors:  Daniel Peñaranda; Juan Manuel Garcia; Maria Leonor Aparicio; Felipe Montes; Clemencia Barón; Roberto C Jiménez; Augusto Peñaranda
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-04-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.