OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: We compared the audiologic benefits of active middle ear implants with those of passive middle ear implants with hearing aids in mixed hearing loss, and also compared the outcomes of stapes vibroplasty with those of round window vibroplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with mixed hearing loss due to chronic otitis media were treated with a middle ear implant. Of these, 15 were treated with a passive middle ear implant (conventional ossiculoplasty with a partial ossicular replacement prosthesis), nine with an active middle ear implant coupling to the stapes, and 10 with an active middle ear implant coupling to the round window. Patients underwent pure-tone/free-field audiograms and speech discrimination tests before surgery and 6 months after surgery, and the results of these tests were compared. RESULTS: The active middle ear implant resulted in better outcomes than the passive middle ear implant with hearing aids at mid to high frequencies (P < .05). Patients who received either a stapes vibroplasty or a round window vibroplasty showed comparable hearing gain except at 8,000 Hz (48.9 dB vs. 31.0 dB, P < .05). Patients who received a stapes vibroplasty showed an improvement even in bone conduction at 1,000 Hz and 2,000 Hz (both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Active middle ear implantation could be a better option than treatment with passive middle ear implants with hearing aids for achieving rehabilitation in patients with mixed hearing loss. Vibroplasty via either oval window or round window stimulation shares similar good results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 127:1435-1441, 2017.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: We compared the audiologic benefits of active middle ear implants with those of passive middle ear implants with hearing aids in mixed hearing loss, and also compared the outcomes of stapes vibroplasty with those of round window vibroplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with mixed hearing loss due to chronic otitis media were treated with a middle ear implant. Of these, 15 were treated with a passive middle ear implant (conventional ossiculoplasty with a partial ossicular replacement prosthesis), nine with an active middle ear implant coupling to the stapes, and 10 with an active middle ear implant coupling to the round window. Patients underwent pure-tone/free-field audiograms and speech discrimination tests before surgery and 6 months after surgery, and the results of these tests were compared. RESULTS: The active middle ear implant resulted in better outcomes than the passive middle ear implant with hearing aids at mid to high frequencies (P < .05). Patients who received either a stapes vibroplasty or a round window vibroplasty showed comparable hearing gain except at 8,000 Hz (48.9 dB vs. 31.0 dB, P < .05). Patients who received a stapes vibroplasty showed an improvement even in bone conduction at 1,000 Hz and 2,000 Hz (both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Active middle ear implantation could be a better option than treatment with passive middle ear implants with hearing aids for achieving rehabilitation in patients with mixed hearing loss. Vibroplasty via either oval window or round window stimulation shares similar good results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 127:1435-1441, 2017.
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
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
Authors: Chan Il Song; Hyong-Ho Cho; Byung Yoon Choi; Jae Young Choi; Jin Woong Choi; Yun-Hoon Choung; Jong Woo Chung; Won-Ho Chung; Sung Hwa Hong; Yehree Kim; Byung Don Lee; Il-Woo Lee; Jong Dae Lee; Jun Ho Lee; Kyu-Yup Lee; Il Joon Moon; In Seok Moon; Seung-Ha Oh; Hong Ju Park; Shi Nae Park; Ji Won Seo Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.372