Modified-Power-Piston: Short-Incudial-Process-Vibroplasty and Simultaneous Stapedotomy in Otosclerosis

The influence of intraoperative auditory brainstem responses on vibroplasty coupling-quality and analysis of the impact of different fixation steps on the coupling

PURPOSE

The Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) is an established active-middle-ear-implant for patients with moderate-to-profound hearing-loss. This surgery is referred to as "Vibroplasty". Sufficient transfer of the VSB's floating-mass-transducers (FMT) energy to the inner ear is a crucial factor influencing the coupling-quality (CQ). However, assessing CQ is hamper by two issues: the method of CQ-assessment itself and the method of FMT-fixation during Vibroplasty.

METHODS

This prospective study explored the influence of intraoperative auditory-brainstem-response (+ ABR) measurements and various fixation methods on postoperative CQ after Vibroplasty as compared to matched-patients after Vibroplasty without intraoperative ABR (-ABR). Propensity-score-matching was performed based on preoperative bone-conduction-pure-tone-average-3 (BC-PTA3) at 1-, 2- and 4 kHz. Primary outcome parameters were postoperative CQ-PTA3, intraoperative ABR threshold for various fixation methods and postoperative BC-PTA3.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were included, of which 14 were + ABR. Preoperative BC-PTA3, sex, age, and number of previous surgeries did not differ significantly between groups (all p > 0.301). Mean postoperative CQ-PTA3 was significantly better for + ABR (1.8 vs. 12.3 dB-HL; p = 0.006). Mean intraoperative ABR threshold was superior for cartilage-counter-bearing and cartilage-housing compared to additional fixation with injectable-platelet-rich- fibrin (53 vs. 56 & 57 dB-HL, respectively; p = 0.04; η2 = 0.33). Mean postoperative BC-PTA3 did not significantly differ between patients (41.4 vs. 41.8 dB-HL; p = 0.77). A total of 7% of the patients required intraoperative readjustment of the FMT based on unsatisfactory intraoperative ABR threshold.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative ABR measurement resulted in significantly better postoperative CQ. Cartilage-counter-bearing and cartilage-housing were observed to have superior CQ. A total of 7% of the patients could be spared revision-Vibroplasty due to intraoperative ABR measurement.

Results and Quality of Life after Implantation of Active Middle Ear Implants

The provision of implantable hearing aids represents an area with high development and innovation potential. On the one hand, this review article provides an overview of current indication criteria for the treatment with active middle ear implants. On the other hand, outcome parameters as well as functional results after implantation of active middle ear implants are demonstrated and discussed. The focus is mainly placed on audiological results as well as the subjective health status. "Patient Reported Outcome Measures" (PROMs) have become an integral part of the evaluation of hearing implant treatment. Due to low evidence level criteria, the study situation regarding audiological as well as subjective outcome parameters is not satisfactory. The lack of an international consensus on accepted outcome parameters makes a meta-analytical analysis of results immensely difficult. In the studies published to date, patients with sensorineural hearing loss and patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss offered better speech recognition after implantation of an active middle ear implant compared to conventional hearing aids. Current analyses show a significant improvement in general as well as hearing-specific quality of life after implantation of an active middle ear implant. To date, no validated, hearing-specific quality-of-life measurement instruments exist for assessing the success of fitting in children. Especially in children with complex malformations of the outer ear and the middle ear, excellent audiological results were shown. However, these results need to be substantiated by quality-of-life measurements in future.

Modified Power Piston Versus Simultaneous Stapedotomy With Hearing Aids in Otosclerosis: A Follow-Up Study Exploring Speech Recognition, Quality of Life and Usage of Device

OBJECTIVE

To compare audiologic outcomes, quality-of-life (QoL) and usage-of-device (UoD) between case-matched, otosclerotic patients with mixed hearing loss (MHL) which received (a) stapedotomy and postoperative amplification with hearing aids (SDT+HA) or (b) short-incudial process coupled active middle ear implant with simultaneous stapedotomy (mPP).

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Prospective, matched case-control, follow-up study conducted at two tertiary otologic referral centers. Eligible were all otosclerotic patients with MHL, which received mPP at either of the two institutions. A case-matched-cohort of SDT+HA-patients was generated from the hospitals database based on preoperative audiologic findings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For sound- and speech perception, primary outcome parameters were the mean postoperative, aided air-conduction pure tone average (mpa-AC-PTA) and word recognition score at 80 dB speech level (mpa-WRS), for QoL the mean Nijmegen-Cochlear-Implant-Questionnaire (NCIQ) total-score, and for UoD the mean score rated on a 10-point Likert-scale.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were included; 14 received mPP; mpa-AC-PTA and mpa-WRS significantly improved from 47.1 dB-HL to 34.3 dB-HL (-12.8 dB-HL; p < 0.001) and from 75.0% to 93.2% (+18.2%; p = 0.002) compared to 46.5 dB-HL to 31.9 dB-HL (-14.8 dB-HL; p < 0.008) and 75.0% to 93.2% (+18.2%; p = 0.002) for SDT+HA. No significant difference between groups was observed (all p > 0.1). NCIQ total-score between groups did not significantly differ (70.4 vs. 69.9; p = 0.93). UoD for mPP was significantly higher (6.1 vs. 3.0; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

If medical/technical problems prevent usage of HA in otosclerosis with MHL, mPP can be considered as effective treatment option with similar audiological outcome and QoL. A significantly higher UoD for mPP was observed.

[Active hearing implants in chronic otitis media]

In patients with inadequate hearing improvement after tympanoplasty and failure of conventional hearing aid fitting, active hearing implants provide an alternative treatment option. Active middle ear implants function as a vibromechanical bypass of the stiffness and damping effect of a poorly oscillating tympanic membrane and the (reconstructed) ossicular chain. The selection of the hearing system depends on the maximum output levels of the hearing system and the anatomical conditions in mostly multiply operated ears. The development of variable coupling elements for active middle ear implants led to an extension of the indications to include not only purely sensorineural hearing loss but also mixed and conductive hearing loss in patients, as the transducer can now be coupled to the (mobile) stapes or the round window membrane. The article provides an overview of current clinical study results and recommendations on the indications for active hearing implants in patients with chronic otitis media.