Literature DB >> 32007992

Hearing Aid Treatment for Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss. Part II: Speech Recognition in Comparison to Direct Acoustic Cochlear Stimulation.

Nina Wardenga1,2, Ad F M Snik3, Eugen Kludt4,5, Bernd Waldmann6, Thomas Lenarz4,5, Hannes Maier4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The conventional therapy for severe mixed hearing loss is middle ear surgery combined with a power hearing aid. However, a substantial group of patients with severe mixed hearing loss cannot be treated adequately with today's state-of-the-art (SOTA) power hearing aids, as predicted by the accompanying part I of this publication, where we compared the available maximum power output (MPO) and gain from technical specifications to requirements for optimum benefit using a common fitting rule. Here, we intended to validate the theoretical assumptions from part I experimentally in a mixed hearing loss cohort fitted with SOTA power hearing aids. Additionally, we compared the results with an implantable hearing device that circumvents the impaired middle ear, directly stimulating the cochlea, as this might be a better option.
OBJECTIVES: Speech recognition outcomes obtained from patients with severe mixed hearing loss supplied acutely with a SOTA hearing aid were studied to validate the outcome predictions as described in part I. Further, the results obtained with hearing aids were compared to those in direct acoustic cochlear implant (DACI) users.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients (37 ears with mixed hearing loss) were provided and fitted with a SOTA power hearing aid. Before and after an acclimatization period of at least 4 weeks, word recognition scores (WRS) in quiet and in noise were studied, as well as the speech reception threshold in noise (SRT). The outcomes were compared retrospectively to a second group of 45 patients (47 ears) using the DACI device. Based on the severity of the mixed hearing loss and the available gain and MPO of the SOTA hearing aid, the hearing aid and DACI users were subdivided into groups with prediction of sufficient, partially insufficient, or very insufficient hearing aid performance.
RESULTS: The patients with predicted adequate SOTA hearing aid performance indeed showed the best WRS in quiet and in noise when compared to patients with predicted inferior outcomes. Insufficient hearing aid performance at one or more frequencies led to a gradual decrease in hearing aid benefit, validating the criteria used here and in the accompanying paper. All DACI patients showed outcomes at the same level as the adequate hearing aid performance group, being significantly better than those of the groups with inadequate hearing aid performance. Whereas WRS in quiet and noise were sensitive to insufficient gain or output, showing significant differences between the SOTA hearing aid and DACI groups, the SRT in noise was less sensitive.
CONCLUSIONS: Limitations of outcomes in mixed hearing loss individuals due to insufficient hearing aid performance can be accurately predicted by applying a commonly used fitting rule and the 35-dB dynamic range rule on the hearing aid specifications. Evidently, when outcomes in patients with mixed hearing loss using the most powerful hearing aids are insufficient, bypassing the middle ear with a powerful active middle ear implant or direct acoustic implant can be a promising alternative treatment. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active middle ear implant; Gain; Hearing aid; Maximum power output; Mixed hearing loss; Stapes surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32007992      PMCID: PMC7265759          DOI: 10.1159/000504285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  16 in total

1.  Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests.

Authors:  Thomas Brand; Birger Kollmeier
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review.

Authors:  Birger Kollmeier; Anna Warzybok; Sabine Hochmuth; Melanie A Zokoll; Verena Uslar; Thomas Brand; Kirsten C Wagener
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Methods and applications of the audibility index in hearing aid selection and fitting.

Authors:  Amyn M Amlani; Jerry L Punch; Teresa Y C Ching
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2002-09

4.  Determining fitting ranges of various bone conduction hearing aids.

Authors:  D C P B M van Barneveld; H J W Kok; J F P Noten; A J Bosman; A F M Snik
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-05-29       Impact factor: 2.597

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

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

6.  First clinical experiences with a direct acoustic cochlear stimulator in comparison to preoperative fitted conventional hearing aids.

Authors:  Susan Busch; Stefanie Kruck; Dirk Spickers; Rudolf Leuwer; Sebastian Hoth; Mark Praetorius; Peter K Plinkert; Hamidreza Mojallal; Burkard Schwab; Hannes Maier; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Multicenter study with a direct acoustic cochlear implant.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Joost W Zwartenkot; Christof Stieger; Burkard Schwab; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Marco Caversaccio; Martin Kompis; Ad F M Snik; Christiane D'hondt; Hamidreza Mojallal
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Hearing Aid Treatment in Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss. Part I: Expected Benefit and Limitations after Stapes Surgery.

Authors:  Nina Wardenga; Victoria Diedrich; Bernd Waldmann; Thomas Lenarz; Hannes Maier
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implants Lead to an Improved Speech Perception Gap Compared to Conventional Hearing Aid.

Authors:  Hannes Maier; Thomas Lenarz; Lena-Vanessa Dolležal; Susan Busch
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment.

Authors:  Nina Wardenga; Cornelia Batsoulis; Kirsten C Wagener; Thomas Brand; Thomas Lenarz; Hannes Maier
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 2.117

View more
  1 in total

1.  Hearing Aid Treatment in Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss. Part I: Expected Benefit and Limitations after Stapes Surgery.

Authors:  Nina Wardenga; Victoria Diedrich; Bernd Waldmann; Thomas Lenarz; Hannes Maier
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 1.854

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.