감각신경성 난청 및 전음성 난청에서 인공중이의 적응증 및 청력 결과
Middle Ear Implant for Sensorineural and Conductive Hearing Loss: Indications and Audiological Results
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background and Objectives Middle ear implants (MEI) have been reported to be an effectiveand safe alternative for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductivehearing loss (CHL). This study aimed to compare the functional outcomes betweenSNHL and CHL in terms of audiological gains. Subjects and Method The medical records of 14 consecutive SNHL and CHL patients whounderwent MEI surgeries from 2015 to 2019 by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Audiological changes using hearing aids (HA) and MEI were compared. Results In SNHL, the mean unaided air-conduction pure tone audiometry (PTA), (57.7 dBHL) decreased significantly using HA and MEI (44.7 and 41.4 dB HL), but with no significantdifference from each other. Unaided word recognition score (WRS) at 65 dB HL (45.1%) wassignificantly improved using HA and MEI (72.6% and 76.6%), with no significant difference. In CHL, the mean unaided air-conduction and bone-conduction PTA were 77.1 (57.5-93.8)and 44.1 (26.3-57.5) dB HL. Three patients could not use conventional HAs due to otorrheaand deformity of the external auditory canal by previous surgeries and 4 patients had usedconventional HAs before MEI. Though both HA and vibrant soundbridge (VSB) showed improvementof hearing thresholds (32.0 and 48.8 dB HL) and WRS (80.0% and 94.9%), it wassignificant only when using VSB. There was no significant difference between HA and VSB. Conclusion MEI can be an effective treatment option for both SNHL and CHL patients, especiallyfor those who suffered from problems using conventional HA.
Abstract
Background and Objectives Middle ear implants (MEI) have been reported to be an effectiveand safe alternative for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductivehearing loss (CHL). This study aimed to compare the functional outcomes betweenSNHL and CHL in terms of audiological gains. Subjects and Method The medical records of 14 consecutive SNHL and CHL patients whounderwent MEI surgeries from 2015 to 2019 by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Audiological changes using hearing aids (HA) and MEI were compared. Results In SNHL, the mean unaided air-conduction pure tone audiometry (PTA), (57.7 dBHL) decreased significantly using HA and MEI (44.7 and 41.4 dB HL), but with no significantdifference from each other. Unaided word recognition score (WRS) at 65 dB HL (45.1%) wassignificantly improved using HA and MEI (72.6% and 76.6%), with no significant difference. In CHL, the mean unaided air-conduction and bone-conduction PTA were 77.1 (57.5-93.8)and 44.1 (26.3-57.5) dB HL. Three patients could not use conventional HAs due to otorrheaand deformity of the external auditory canal by previous surgeries and 4 patients had usedconventional HAs before MEI. Though both HA and vibrant soundbridge (VSB) showed improvementof hearing thresholds (32.0 and 48.8 dB HL) and WRS (80.0% and 94.9%), it wassignificant only when using VSB. There was no significant difference between HA and VSB. Conclusion MEI can be an effective treatment option for both SNHL and CHL patients, especiallyfor those who suffered from problems using conventional HA.
참고문헌 (24)
- Maw J, "The Vibrant Soundbridge : A global overview", Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 52(2), pp.285~295 (2019)
- "Medical care benefit of middle ear implant" (2017)[URL]
- Labassi S, "The Vibrant Soundbridge®middle ear implant : A historical overview", Cochlear Implants Int, 18(6), pp.314~323 (2017)
- Pegan A, "Active middle ear Vibrant Soundbridge sound implant", Acta Clin Croat, 58(2), pp.348~353 (2019)
- Butler CL, "Efficacy of the active middleear implant in patients with sensorineural hearing loss", J Laryngol Otol, 127(Suppl 2), pp.S8~S16 (2013)
- Clarós P, "Active middle ear implants : Vibroplasty™in children and adolescents with acquired or congenital middle ear disorders", Acta Otolaryngol, 133(6), pp.612~619 (2013)
- Marino R, "A comparative study of hearing aids and round window application of the vibrant sound bridge(VSB)for patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss", Int J Audiol, 52(4), pp.209~218 (2013)
- Ernst A, "Safety and effectiveness of the Vibrant Soundbridge in treating conductive and mixed hearing loss : A systematic review", Laryngoscope, 126(6), pp.1451~1457 (2016)
- Verhaegen VJ, "Audiological application criteria for implantable hearing aid devices : A clinical experience at the Nijmegen ORL clinic", Laryngoscope, 118(9), pp.1645~1649 (2008)
- Luetje CM, "Phase III clinical trial results with the Vibrant Soundbridge implantable middle ear hearing device : A prospective controlled multicenter study", Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 126(2), pp.97~107 (2002)
- Ihler F, "Long-term functional outcome and satisfaction of patients with an active middle ear implant for sensorineural hearing loss compared to a matched population with conventional hearing aids", Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 271(12), pp.3161~3169 (2014)
- Lee HJ, "Evaluation of maximal speech intelligibility with Vibrant Soundbridge in patients with sensorineural hearing loss", Otol Neurotol, 38(9), pp.1246~1250 (2017)
- Busch S, "Comparison of alternative coupling methods of the Vibrant Soundbridge floating mass transducer", Audiol Neurootol, 21(6), pp.347~355 (2016)
- Zwartenkot JW, "Amplification options for patients with mixed hearing loss", Otol Neurotol, 35(2), pp.221~226 (2014)
- Wagner F, "Indications and candidacy for active middle ear implants", Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 69, pp.20~26 (2010)
- Snik AF, "Vibrant semi-implantable hearing device with digital sound processing : Effective gain and speech perception", Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 127(12), pp.1433~1437 (2001)
- Mlynski R, "Standardized active middle-ear implant coupling to the short incus process", Otol Neurotol, 36(8), pp.1390~1398 (2015)
- Jung J, "Audiologic limitations of Vibrant Soundbridge device: Is the contralateral hearing aid fitting indispensable?", Laryngoscope, 126(9), pp.2116~2123 (2016)
- Gunduz B, "Functional outcomes of Vibrant Soundbridge applied on the middle ear windows in comparison with conventional hearing aids", Acta Otolaryngol, 132(12), pp.1306~1310 (2012)
- Mojallal H, "Retrospective audiological analysis of bone conduction versus round window vibratory stimulation in patients with mixed hearing loss", Int J Audiol, 54(6), pp.391~400 (2015)
- Labassi S, "Retrospective of 1000 patients implanted with a Vibrant Soundbridge middle-ear implant", Cochlear Implants Int, 6(Suppl 1), pp.74~77 (2005)
- Vincent C, "A longitudinal study on postoperative hearing thresholds with the Vibrant Soundbridge device", Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 261(9), pp.493~496 (2004)
- Lassaletta L, "Pros and cons of round window vibroplasty in open cavities: Audiological, surgical, and quality of life outcomes", Otol Neurotol, 36(6), pp.944~952 (2015)
- Zwartenkot JW, "Active middle ear implantation: Long-term medical and technical follow-up, implant survival, and complications", Otol Neurotol, 37(5), pp.513~519 (2016)