Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Audiol. 2015 Jun;54(6):391-400. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.986690. Epub 2015 Mar 3.

Retrospective audiological analysis of bone conduction versus round window vibratory stimulation in patients with mixed hearing loss.

Author information

1
Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University of Hannover , Germany.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To compare audiological outcomes in mild-to-moderate mixed hearing loss patients treated with a bone-anchored hearing aid or an active middle-ear implant. Analysis aimed to refine criteria used in preoperative selection of implant type.

DESIGN:

Retrospective comparative analysis of audiological data. Follow-up time ranged between 0.55 and 8.8 years.

STUDY SAMPLE:

For detailed comparative analysis, 12 patients (six in each group) with comparable bone conduction thresholds and similar clinical characteristics were selected. A larger cohort of 48 patient files were used to evaluate overall audiological indication criteria (24 per group).

RESULTS:

In free-field tone audiometry, Baha patients showed mean aided thresholds between 40-48 dB, whereas hearing thresholds for VSB patients were 25-43 dB. Baha and VSB users had mean WRS of 56% and 82%, respectively, at 65 dB. Better speech understanding in noise was seen with the VSB.

CONCLUSION:

Analysis of the main cohort (n = 48) showed that treatment with round window vibroplasty leads to better hearing performance than treatment with a bone-anchored hearing device, if the bone conduction pure-tone average (0.5 to 4 kHz) is poorer than 35 dB HL. Audiological analysis in the smaller comparative analysis showed similar findings.

KEYWORDS:

Bone-anchored hearing aids; Vibrant Soundbridge; active middle-ear implants; bone conduction; mixed hearing loss; round window vibroplasty

PMID:
25735204
DOI:
10.3109/14992027.2014.986690
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center