Literature DB >> 27256365

Comparing audiological test results obtained from a sound processor attached to a Softband with direct and magnetic passive bone conduction hearing implant systems.

Ahmet Kara1, Mete Iseri2, Merve Durgut2, Murat Topdag2, Murat Ozturk2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare audiological test results obtained from a sound processor (SP) attached to a Softband with those obtained from direct (abutment connection) bone conduction implant systems and magnetic passive bone conduction implant systems with different magnet strengths on patients implanted at our clinic. Twenty-four patients who were implanted with either an abutment or magnetic bone conduction implant system between January 2012 and December 2014 were analyzed for hearing results, such as free-field hearing thresholds, direct bone conduction hearing thresholds, and speech discrimination scores with aided and unaided conditions Both magnetic and direct osseointegrated bone conduction implant systems, as well as the Softband system, provide good hearing outcomes when compared with unaided performance; however, the abutment connection system gives better hearing thresholds in the higher frequencies. No significant difference in hearing gain was found between the Softband system, magnet 5, and magnet used by the patient. Magnetic and direct bone conduction hearing implant systems are both effective for rehabilitation of conductive and mixed hearing loss when conventional hearing aids cannot be used. However, patients with high-frequency hearing loss may be better suited to an abutment connection system if they are not satisfied with high-frequency hearing gains provided via the trial Softband system preoperatively and should be counseled accordingly.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory rehabilitation; Bone conductive implant; Headband test; Hearing aids and assistive; Hearing loss; Listening devices

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27256365     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-016-4123-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  14 in total

1.  The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids.

Authors:  C T van der Pouw; A F Snik; C W Cremers
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci       Date:  1999-06

2.  Introducing the Sophono Alpha 1 abutment free bone conduction hearing system.

Authors:  O Mulla; F Agada; P G Reilly
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.597

3.  [Prevention and treatment of skin complications following BAHA implantation].

Authors:  Yue Fan; Ying Zhang; Zhen Wang; Pu Wang; Xiao-li Zhu; Hua Yang; Xiao-wei Chen; Zhi-qiang Gao
Journal:  Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2013-10

4.  Clinical experience with the Xomed Audiant osteointegrated bone conducting hearing device: a preliminary report of seven cases.

Authors:  P S Wade; S K Tollos; J Naiberg
Journal:  J Otolaryngol       Date:  1989-04

5.  Experiences with implantable hearing devices and a presentation of a new device.

Authors:  J Hough; J Vernon; B Johnson; K Dormer; T Himelick
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1986 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.547

6.  Hearing thresholds with direct bone conduction versus conventional bone conduction.

Authors:  B Håkansson; A Tjellström; U Rosenhall
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1984

7.  A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids.

Authors:  Ruwan Kiringoda; Lawrence R Lustig
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  A new transcutaneous bone anchored hearing device - the Baha® Attract System: the first experience in Turkey.

Authors:  Mete Işeri; Kadir Serkan Orhan; Ahmet Kara; Merve Durgut; Murat Oztürk; Murat Topdağ; Sebla Calışkan
Journal:  Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr

Review 9.  Active Bone Conduction Prosthesis: Bonebridge(TM).

Authors:  Mario E Zernotti; Andrea Bravo Sarasty
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-10

10.  Individualised headband simulation test for predicting outcome after percutaneous bone conductive implantation.

Authors:  S Monini; C Filippi; F Atturo; M Biagini; A I Lazzarino; M Barbara
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.124

View more
  2 in total

1.  Complications of Transcutaneous Protheses - A Systematic Review of Publications Over the Past 10 Years.

Authors:  Marcos Antonio de Souza; Santiago Luis Vallejos Riart; Stephanie Rugeri de Souza; Rubens de Brito; Ricardo Ferreira Bento
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-02-04

2.  A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Piotr H Skarzynski; Anna Ratuszniak; Kamila Osinska; Magdalena Koziel; Bartlomiej Krol; Katarzyna B Cywka; Henryk Skarzynski
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.311

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.