CONCLUSIONS: The satisfaction rate of the subjects with an auditory implant appears strictly related to the resulting auditory improvement, and the surgical variables would play a prevailing role in respect to the esthetic factors. OBJECTIVES: To assess the rate of satisfaction in subjects who underwent the surgical application of an auditory device at a single Implanting Center Unit. METHOD: A series of validated questionnaires has been administered to subjects who underwent the surgical application of different auditory devices. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) have been used to compare the implanted situation with the hearing-aided one; a percutaneous bone conductive implant (pBCI) with an active middle ear implant (AMEI) on the round window in mixed hearing loss; and an invisible, fully-implantable device with a frankly and bulky semi-implantable device. RESULTS: The mean GBI scores were higher in Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB)® and Bonebridge® subjects, without significant differences among the various devices. The mean VAS score increased for all the devices in comparison with the conventional hearing aid. The mean APHAB score was similarly better in the implanted condition as total and partial scores.
CONCLUSIONS: The satisfaction rate of the subjects with an auditory implant appears strictly related to the resulting auditory improvement, and the surgical variables would play a prevailing role in respect to the esthetic factors. OBJECTIVES: To assess the rate of satisfaction in subjects who underwent the surgical application of an auditory device at a single Implanting Center Unit. METHOD: A series of validated questionnaires has been administered to subjects who underwent the surgical application of different auditory devices. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) have been used to compare the implanted situation with the hearing-aided one; a percutaneous bone conductive implant (pBCI) with an active middle ear implant (AMEI) on the round window in mixed hearing loss; and an invisible, fully-implantable device with a frankly and bulky semi-implantable device. RESULTS: The mean GBI scores were higher in Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB)® and Bonebridge® subjects, without significant differences among the various devices. The mean VAS score increased for all the devices in comparison with the conventional hearing aid. The mean APHAB score was similarly better in the implanted condition as total and partial scores.
Entities:
Keywords:
Auditory implants; Glasgow benefit inventory; abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit; active middle ear implants; bone conductive implants; visual analog scale
Authors: Aaron C Moberly; Michael S Harris; Lauren Boyce; Kara Vasil; Taylor Wucinich; David B Pisoni; Jodi Baxter; Christin Ray; Valeriy Shafiro Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Stephen E M Jones; Rujuta Roplekar-Bance; Richard Green; Caroline Rae; Aaron Ferguson; Patrick M Spielmann Journal: J Int Adv Otol Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 1.017