Limits...
A tutorial on implantable hearing amplification options for adults with unilateral microtia and atresia.

Yu JK, Wong LL, Tsang WS, Tong MC - Biomed Res Int (2014)

Bottom Line: Four implantable hearing devices were reviewed and compared.The selection of appropriate implantable hearing devices should be based on various factors, including radiological findings and patient preferences, possible surgical complications, whether the device is Food and Drug Administration- (FDA-)/CE-approved, and the finances.To ensure the accurate evaluation of candidacy and outcomes, the evaluation methods should be adapted to suite the type of hearing device.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 6/F Clinical Science Building, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong ; The Institute of Human Communicative Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

ABSTRACT

Background: Patients with unilateral atresia and microtia encounter problems in sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Although there are four implantable hearing devices available, there is little discussion and evidence on the application of these devices on patients with unilateral atresia and microtia problems.

Objective: This paper will review the details of these four implantable hearing devices for the treatment of unilateral atresia. They are percuteaneous osseointegrated bone anchored hearing aid, Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implant, Bonebridge bone conduction system, and Carina fully implantable hearing device.

Methods: Four implantable hearing devices were reviewed and compared. The clinical decision process that led to the recommendation of a device was illustrated by using a case study.

Conclusions: The selection of appropriate implantable hearing devices should be based on various factors, including radiological findings and patient preferences, possible surgical complications, whether the device is Food and Drug Administration- (FDA-)/CE-approved, and the finances. To ensure the accurate evaluation of candidacy and outcomes, the evaluation methods should be adapted to suite the type of hearing device.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Speech reception thresholds (SRT) obtained in noise using the Cantonese version of the Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT). SRTs were obtained unaided and aided at 3 months after activation of the VSB.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060767&req=5

fig6: Speech reception thresholds (SRT) obtained in noise using the Cantonese version of the Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT). SRTs were obtained unaided and aided at 3 months after activation of the VSB.

Mentions: In noise, as shown in Figure 6, the use of the VSB implant did not improve binaural squelch in the noise front condition; that is, the SRT did not improve compared to unaided, probably because the gain of the implant was low and thus did not yield true binaural hearing. When the noise was on the nonimplant side (good ear), the use of an implant-assisted speech reception (and thus SRT) improved to −2.5 dB S/N. Compared to when unaided, the patient was better able to take advantage of the spatial separation of speech and noise when noise was moved from the front to the implant side, resulting in an improvement of 6.2 dB in SRT. Overall, however, the changes in SRTs were small and could not be regarded as significant.


A tutorial on implantable hearing amplification options for adults with unilateral microtia and atresia.

Yu JK, Wong LL, Tsang WS, Tong MC - Biomed Res Int (2014)

Speech reception thresholds (SRT) obtained in noise using the Cantonese version of the Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT). SRTs were obtained unaided and aided at 3 months after activation of the VSB.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060767&req=5

fig6: Speech reception thresholds (SRT) obtained in noise using the Cantonese version of the Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT). SRTs were obtained unaided and aided at 3 months after activation of the VSB.
Mentions: In noise, as shown in Figure 6, the use of the VSB implant did not improve binaural squelch in the noise front condition; that is, the SRT did not improve compared to unaided, probably because the gain of the implant was low and thus did not yield true binaural hearing. When the noise was on the nonimplant side (good ear), the use of an implant-assisted speech reception (and thus SRT) improved to −2.5 dB S/N. Compared to when unaided, the patient was better able to take advantage of the spatial separation of speech and noise when noise was moved from the front to the implant side, resulting in an improvement of 6.2 dB in SRT. Overall, however, the changes in SRTs were small and could not be regarded as significant.

Bottom Line: Four implantable hearing devices were reviewed and compared.The selection of appropriate implantable hearing devices should be based on various factors, including radiological findings and patient preferences, possible surgical complications, whether the device is Food and Drug Administration- (FDA-)/CE-approved, and the finances.To ensure the accurate evaluation of candidacy and outcomes, the evaluation methods should be adapted to suite the type of hearing device.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 6/F Clinical Science Building, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong ; The Institute of Human Communicative Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

ABSTRACT

Background: Patients with unilateral atresia and microtia encounter problems in sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Although there are four implantable hearing devices available, there is little discussion and evidence on the application of these devices on patients with unilateral atresia and microtia problems.

Objective: This paper will review the details of these four implantable hearing devices for the treatment of unilateral atresia. They are percuteaneous osseointegrated bone anchored hearing aid, Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implant, Bonebridge bone conduction system, and Carina fully implantable hearing device.

Methods: Four implantable hearing devices were reviewed and compared. The clinical decision process that led to the recommendation of a device was illustrated by using a case study.

Conclusions: The selection of appropriate implantable hearing devices should be based on various factors, including radiological findings and patient preferences, possible surgical complications, whether the device is Food and Drug Administration- (FDA-)/CE-approved, and the finances. To ensure the accurate evaluation of candidacy and outcomes, the evaluation methods should be adapted to suite the type of hearing device.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus