Literature DB >> 25730448

Comparison of audiologic results and patient satisfaction for two osseointegrated bone conduction devices: results of a prospective study.

Susan Busch1, Thomas Giere, Thomas Lenarz, Hannes Maier.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Osseointegrated bone conduction (BC) devices are an important rehabilitation option for patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss or single-sided deafness. The development of new devices is ongoing and requires evaluation of the performance of new hearing aids. Here, we compared the audiologic outcome and subjective benefit of two different designs of osseointegrated implant systems from different manufacturers. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, experimental, monocentric, crossover study performed at the Medical University Hannover, Germany. PATIENTS AND
INTERVENTIONS: Eleven patients, already implanted with an adequate abutment, tested each device in daily life situations sequentially for a period of 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bone conduction, word recognition in quiet (Freiburg monosyllable test, L50%), and speech reception thresholds in noise (Oldenburg Sentence Test) were measured unaided and aided with the devices after each test period. The subjective benefit was assessed by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale-Comparative questionnaire; and a self-developed handling questionnaire.
RESULTS: Audiologic results indicate a slightly better performance of the BCB. However, subjective benefit and patient satisfaction and preference evaluated with questionnaires were higher with the BCP than with the BCB.
CONCLUSION: Amplification-wise, both devices are suitable treatments for hearing-impaired patients. Nevertheless, audiometric tests do not reflect subjective benefit and patients' satisfaction, and both options should be tested to provide each patient with the best possible hearing solution. The study further elucidates the importance and necessity of questionnaires in the process of evaluating the hearing benefit of hearing devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25730448     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000727

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


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of two different bone anchored hearing instruments.

Authors:  Ahmet Kara; Mahmut Tayyar Kalcioglu; Çağlayan Adigul; Merve Torun Topcu; Mehmet Koçoğlu; Bilgehan Celik; Mahmut Sinan Yilmaz
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 3.236

2.  Ten years of experience with the Ponto bone-anchored hearing system-A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Helén Lagerkvist; Karin Carvalho; Marcus Holmberg; Ulrika Petersson; Cor Cremers; Malou Hultcrantz
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 2.597

3.  The Oticon Ponto System in Adults With Severe-to-Profound and Mixed Hearing Loss: Audiologic Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction.

Authors:  Piotr Henryk Skarzynski; Beata Dziendziel; Elzbieta Wlodarczyk; Henryk Skarzynski
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 2.619

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.