Literature DB >> 29481695

Factors associated with benefit of active middle ear implants compared to conventional hearing aids.

Theodore R McRackan1, William B Clinkscales1, Jayne B Ahlstrom1, Shaun A Nguyen1, Judy R Dubno1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Identify factors associated with benefit of middle ear implants (MEIs) as compared to conventional hearing aids (HAs). STUDY
DESIGN: Independent review of audiological data from a multicenter prospective U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trial. Preoperative and postoperative earphone, unaided/aided/implanted pure-tone thresholds, and word recognition scores were evaluated.
RESULTS: Ninety-one subjects were included in this study. Mean word recognition was better with MEIs than with HAs (81.8% ± 12.0% vs. 77.6% ± 14.6%, P = 0.035). Word recognition with MEIs showed a low positive correlation with word recognition measured with earphones (r = 0.25, P = 0.016) and a moderate positive correlation with aided word recognition (r = 0.42, P < 0.001). Earphone word recognition alone was not predictive of MEI benefit over HA benefit (r = 0.09, P = 0.41), unlike differences between scores with earphone and HAs (earphone-aided differences [EAD]) (r = 0.62, P < 0.011). As compared to those with -EADs, subjects with +EADs showed greater improvement in word recognition from unaided to implanted and from HAs to implanted (P < 0.0001). Using the 95% CI for word recognition scores, 16 subjects showed significantly higher scores with the MEI than with HAs. Of those, 14 had +EAD.
CONCLUSION: Word recognition benefit derived from conventional HAs and MEIs from this large, multi-center FDA trial provides further evidence of the importance of aided word recognition in clinical decision making, such as determining candidacy for and success with MEIs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. Laryngoscope, 128:2133-2138, 2018.
© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Middle ear implant; hearing; hearing aid; sensorineural hearing loss; word recognition

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29481695      PMCID: PMC6109627          DOI: 10.1002/lary.27109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  17 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of middle ear implants: do they improve hearing as much as conventional hearing AIDS?

Authors:  James R Tysome; Ram Moorthy; Ambrose Lee; Dan Jiang; Alec Fitzgerald O'Connor
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Clinical Implications of Word Recognition Differences in Earphone and Aided Conditions.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Jayne B Ahlstrom; William B Clinkscales; Ted A Meyer; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  The SOUNDTEC direct system: surgical technique.

Authors:  K Dyer
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2005-09

4.  Evaluation of Maximal Speech Intelligibility With Vibrant Soundbridge in Patients With Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Hyun-Jin Lee; Jeon Mi Lee; Jae Young Choi; Jinsei Jung
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 5.  Implantable hearing devices: the Ototronix MAXUM system.

Authors:  Stanley Pelosi; Matthew L Carlson; Michael E Glasscock
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 3.346

6.  Experience with the SOUNDTEC implantable hearing aid.

Authors:  Herbert Silverstein; James Atkins; Jack H Thompson; Nancy Gilman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable.

Authors:  A R Thornton; M J Raffin
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1978-09

8.  Global and regional hearing impairment prevalence: an analysis of 42 studies in 29 countries.

Authors:  Gretchen Stevens; Seth Flaxman; Emma Brunskill; Maya Mascarenhas; Colin D Mathers; Mariel Finucane
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 3.367

9.  Active middle ear implant compared with open-fit hearing aid in sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Klaus Boeheim; Stefan-Marcel Pok; Max Schloegel; Peter Filzmoser
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 10.  Middle ear implants for rehabilitation of sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review of FDA approved devices.

Authors:  Charissa N Kahue; Matthew L Carlson; Julie A Daugherty; David S Haynes; Michael E Glasscock
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  3 in total

1.  Earphone and Aided Word Recognition Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Joshua E Fabie; Jane A Burton; Suqrat Munawar; Meredith A Holcomb; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Three-year audiological outcomes of the latest generation middle ear transducer (MET) implant.

Authors:  Henryk Skarżyński; Beata Dziendziel; Elżbieta Włodarczyk; Piotr H Skarżyński
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Design Study of a Round Window Piezoelectric Transducer for Active Middle Ear Implants.

Authors:  Dong Ho Shin
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-31       Impact factor: 3.576

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.