Literature DB >> 24338550

Vibroplasty in mixed and conductive hearing loss: comparison of different coupling methods.

Erich Vyskocil1, Dominik Riss, Clemens Honeder, Christoph Arnoldner, Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi, Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner, Stefan Flak, Wolfgang Gstoettner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate modified coupling techniques of the Vibrant Soundbridge system in patients with mixed and conductive hearing loss and to compare it with conventional vibroplasty. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
METHODS: Two different groups were evaluated: 1) nine cases of conventional incus vibroplasty in comparison with 2) nine patients with modified coupling of the floating mass transducer. In the modified coupling approach, the vibrant floating mass transducer was attached to 1) the stapes/oval window, 2) the round window, or 3) the drilled promontory bone (promontory fenestration window). In three patients, an additional ossiculoplasty was performed. Preoperative and postoperative aided and unaided pure-tone and free-field audiometry and Freiburg monosyllabic word test were used to assess hearing outcome.
RESULTS: Functional hearing gain obtained in patients with mixed and conductive hearing loss who underwent modified coupling was 39 dB. Patients with pure sensorineural hearing loss who received conventional incus coupling showed a functional hearing gain of 25 dB. Average functional gain was 41 dB in the oval window group, 45 dB in the round window group, and 30 dB in the promontory fenestration window group. Word recognition test revealed an average improvement of 51% and 21% in the modified and in the conventional approach, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Modified vibroplasty is a safe and effective treatment for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss. Coupling the floating mass transducer to the promontory bone (promontory fenestration window) is a viable option in chronically disabled ears if oval and round window coupling is not possible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
© 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Vibrant Soundbridge; cochlear endosteum; oval window; round window

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24338550     DOI: 10.1002/lary.24474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

1.  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 2.  Active middle ear implantation: imaging in the pre-operative planning and post-operative assessment of the Vibrant SoundbridgeTM.

Authors:  Christian Burd; Irumee Pai; Steve Ej Connor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Modified-Power-Piston: Short-Incudial-Process-Vibroplasty and Simultaneous Stapedotomy in Otosclerosis.

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

4.  Modified Power Piston Versus Simultaneous Stapedotomy With Hearing Aids in Otosclerosis: A Follow-Up Study Exploring Speech Recognition, Quality of Life and Usage of Device.

Authors:  Daniel Dejaco; David Riedl; Anna Elisabeth Cassar; Timo Gottfried; Thomas Rasse; Natalie Fischer; Armina Kreuzer-Simonyan; Josef Seebacher; Herbert Riechelmann; Thomas Keintzel; Joachim Schmutzhard
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Progressive Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Vibrant Soundbridge Users Requiring Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Faris F Brkic; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Dominik Riss; Thomas Thurner; David T Liu; Wolfgang Gstöttner; Erich Vyskocil
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-31
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.