Literature DB >> 24556905

A comparative study on speech in noise understanding with a direct acoustic cochlear implant in subjects with severe to profound mixed hearing loss.

Thomas Lenarz1, Nicolas Verhaert, Christian Desloovere, Jolien Desmet, Christiane D'hondt, Juan Carlos Falcón González, Eugen Kludt, Angel Ramos Macías, Henryk Skarżyński, Paul Van de Heyning, Caroline Vyncke, Arkadiusz Wasowski.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a direct acoustic cochlear implant (DACI) for speech understanding in noise in patients suffering from severe to profound mixed hearing loss (MHL) due to various etiologies compared to the preoperative best-aided condition. The study was performed at five tertiary referral centers in Europe (Belgium, Germany, Poland and Spain). Nineteen adult subjects with severe to profound MHL due to (advanced) otosclerosis, ear canal fibrosis, chronic otitis media, tympanosclerosis or previous cholesteatoma were implanted with a DACI (Codacs™ Investigational Device) combined with a conventional stapes prosthesis. Unaided and aided speech reception scores in quiet and in noise, preoperative and postoperative air and bone conduction thresholds and aided and unaided sound field thresholds were measured prospectively during the study. Subjective benefit analysis was determined through the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire. Quality of life was measured by the Health Utilities Index. All subjects were fitted preoperatively with hearing aids and/or a bone conduction implant on a headband before DACI implantation. This allows direct comparison between different hearing rehabilitation solutions. The mean speech reception threshold in noise improved significantly by 7.9 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) after activation of the DACI compared to the preoperative best-aided condition. For all 19 subjects, a mean postoperative aided speech reception threshold of 2.6 dB SNR (standard deviation: 8.3 dB) was measured. On average, no significant shift in the bone conduction thresholds was noted 4-5 months after implantation. A mean sound field threshold improvement of 46 and 16 dB was measured compared to the preoperative unaided and best-aided condition, respectively. Speech perception tests in quiet showed a mean improvement of the word recognition scores by 65 and 48% at 65 dB SPL compared to the preoperative unaided and best-aided condition, respectively. In summary, DACI provides an effective improvement of the speech perception in noise compared to the best-aided condition in subjects suffering from severe to profound MHL.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24556905     DOI: 10.1159/000358004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  11 in total

1.  Mastoidectomy dimensions for direct acoustic cochlear implantation: a human cadaveric temporal bone study.

Authors:  Francesco Fiorino; Maurizio Amadori
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Subtotal petrosectomy and Codacs™: new possibilities in ears with chronic infection.

Authors:  Burkard Schwab; Eugen Kludt; Hannes Maier; Thomas Lenarz; Magnus Teschner
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Cochlear Implant Electrode Array From Partial to Full Insertion in Non-Human Primate Model.

Authors:  Raquel Manrique-Huarte; Diego Calavia; Maria Antonia Gallego; Manuel Manrique
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.017

4.  [Direct acoustic cochlear stimulation for therapy of severe to profound mixed hearing loss: Codacs™ Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant System].

Authors:  T Lenarz; B Schwab; H Maier; E Kludt
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 5.  [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

Review 6.  Efficacy of Auditory Implants for Patients With Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss Depends on Implant Center.

Authors:  Ad Snik; Hannes Maier; Bill Hodgetts; Martin Kompis; Griet Mertens; Paul van de Heyning; Thomas Lenarz; Arjan Bosman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 7.  Implantable hearing devices.

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

8.  Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2020-03-06

9.  Direct Acoustic Stimulation at the Lateral Canal: An Alternative Route to the Inner Ear?

Authors:  Nicolas Verhaert; Joris Walraevens; Christian Desloovere; Jan Wouters; Jean-Marc Gérard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A New Surgical Approach for Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implant: A Temporal Bone Study.

Authors:  Luca Bruschini; Francesca Forli; Andrea De Vito; Stefano Berrettini
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-06-18       Impact factor: 3.372

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.