Implantable hearing devices

Audiological assessment with Matrix sentence test of percutaneous vs transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The study evaluated if there were differences between two types of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA), percutaneous vs transcutaneous implants in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes.

METHODS

Eleven patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss in the implanted ear with a bone conduction pure-tone average (BC PTA) of the hearing threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz ≤ 55 dB HL, aged > 5 years. Patients were assigned to two groups: percutaneous implant (BAHA Connect) and transcutaneous implant (BAHA Attract). Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by the implant, and the variation in the quality of life after the surgery.

RESULTS

No differences were found comparing the data of Matrix SRT. APHAB and GBI questionnaires did not show a statistically significant difference comparing each subscale and the global score. The comparison of scores obtained from the SADL questionnaire demonstrated a difference in the "Personal Image" subscale with a better score for the transcutaneous implant. Furthermore, the Global Score of the SADL questionnaire was statistically different between groups. Other subscales did not show any significant difference. A Spearman's ρ correlation test was used to evaluate if the age could influence the SRT results; no correlation was found between age and SRT. Furthermore, the same test was used to confirm a negative correlation between SRT and the global benefit of the APHAB questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The current research confirms the absence of statistically significant differences comparing percutaneous and transcutaneous implants. The Matrix sentence test has shown the comparability of the two implants in the speech-in-noise intelligibility. Actually, the choice of the implant type can be done according to the patient's personal needs, the surgeon's experience, and the patient anatomy.

Evaluating the effectiveness of bone conduction hearing implants in rehabilitation of hearing loss

PURPOSE

Implantable hearing devices are indicated for candidates who could not benefit from conventional hearing aids. This study aimed at evaluating their effectiveness in rehabilitation of hearing loss.

METHODS

This study included patients who received bone conduction implants at Tertiary Teaching Hospitals, between December 2018 and November 2020. Data were collected prospectively, and patients were assessed both subjectively using COSI and GHABP questionnaires and objectively using bone conduction and air conduction thresholds, unaided and aided free field speech thresholds. Outcomes of transcutaneous (tBCHD) and percutaneous (pBCHD) bone conduction hearing devices were compared as well as outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral fitting. Postoperative skin complications were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

A total of seventy patients were included, thirty-seven of them were implanted with tBCHD and thirty-three with pBCHD. Fifty-five patients were fitted unilaterally compared to 15 bilateral fitting. Preoperative mean of bone conduction (BC) of the overall sample was 23.27 ± 10.91 dB, the Air conduction (AC) mean was 69.27 ± 13.75 dB. There was significant difference between unaided free field speech score (88.51% ± 7.92) and the aided score (96.79 ± 2.38) with P value = 0.00001. The postoperative assessment using GHABP showed a benefit score mean of 70.95 ± 18.79, patient satisfaction score mean of 78.15 ± 18.39. The disability score improved significantly from a mean of 54.08 ± 15.26 to residual score of only 12.50 ± 10.22 with P < 0.00001 postoperatively. There was significant improvement in all parameters of COSI questionnaire following fitting. Comparison of pBCHDs vs tBCHDs showed a non-significant difference regarding FF speech as well as GHABP parameters. Comparison of the post-operative skin complications was in favor of tBCHDs as (86.5%) of the patients had normal skin postoperatively, compared to 45.5% of patients with pBCHDs devices. Bilateral implantation showed significant improvement of FF speech scores, GHABP satisfaction score, as well as COSI score results.

CONCLUSION

Bone conduction hearing devices are effective solution for rehabilitation of hearing loss. Bilateral fitting yields satisfactory outcomes in suitable candidates. Transcutaneous devices carry significantly lower skin complication rates compared to percutaneous devices.

Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study

PURPOSE

The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes.

METHODS

Fifteen patients were selected.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Pure-Tone Average (PTA) air conduction range of hearing threshold at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz from 15 dB HL to 75 dB HL. Patients were assigned in three groups according to the hearing aid used: Extended wear, RITE, and CIC. Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with hearing aids, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by hearing aids.

RESULTS

No differences were demonstrated in the Matrix sentence test between the groups. A statistically significant difference was present between the "Personal image" of patients with EW and RITE with a p value of 0.01 (better outcome using EW). For the APHAB questionnaire, a significant difference was present in the "Aversiveness" of the patients with EW in comparison to CIC and RITE with a p value of 0.01 (higher aversiveness of sound using EW).

CONCLUSION

In terms of audiological advantage, extended ear hearing aids are similar to RITE and CIC as demonstrated from the Matrix speech reception threshold. The result was confirmed using the APHAB questionnaire. Extended wear devices are better than daily hearing aids concerning the "personal image".

Hearing and hearing rehabilitation after obliteration of troublesome mastoid cavities

Purpose

The purpose of this study is the evaluation of post-operative hearing threshold after revision surgery and obliteration of troublesome canal wall down mastoidectomy cavities (CWDMCs). The ability to use and tolerate conventional hearing aids (CHAs) was also evaluated.

Methods

A retrospective chart analysis of 249 patients with chronically draining CWDMCs who underwent revision surgery including obliteration of the mastoid cavity between 2007 and 2017 at the AMC location of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Amsterdam UMC) was performed. Patient characteristics, pre- and post-operative Merchant grade, surgical outcomes, pre- and post-operative hearing thresholds, and the ability/necessity to use a CHA or the ability/necessity to use a Bone Conduction Device (BCD) were recorded.

Results

Dry ears were found in 95% of the total cohort. Residual disease was detected in 1.6% during MRI follow-up with no residual cholesteatoma in the obliterated area. In 3.2% of the patients, recurrent disease was found. A significant improvement in mean air conduction level, mean bone conduction level, and mean air-bone gap (ABG) was found post-operatively (p < 0.05). For all types of ossicular chain reconstruction, a significant improvement in mean Pure Tone Average was observed (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with an indication for CHA was similar pre- and post-operatively (67% both pre- and post-operatively). The ability to use a CHA improved from 3% pre-operatively to 57% post-operatively (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study shows that revision surgery and obliteration of CWDMCs enable successful CHA rehabilitation post-operatively. Upon this type of surgery, hearing thresholds improve significantly, but the need for rehabilitation with a CHA remains necessary in most cases.