Audiological benefit and subjective satisfaction with the ADHEAR hearing system in children with unilateral conductive hearing loss

Hirth, D; Weiß, R; Stöver, Timo; Krämer, Sabine

doi:10.1007/s00405-020-06364-2

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding hearing outcomes, a literature review of PubMed was conducted, and the results of studies comparing the adhesive adapter-and softband (or headband)-worn BCHAs in patients with CHL are displayed in Table 3. The average FHG for the adhesive aids ranged from 17 to 35.6 dB HL and 19 to 29.9 dB HL for the conventional aids [Dahm et al, 2018, Gawliczek et al, 2018, Dahm et al, 2019, Neumann et al, 2019, Osborne et al, 2019, Skarzynski et al, 2019, Favoreel et al, 2020, Kuthubutheen et al, 2020, Hirth et al, 2021, Ren et al, 2021. In our study, the mean (SD) values of FHG were 20.63 (3.94) dB HL with the adhesive adapter and 26.39 (3.15) dB HL with the softband (middle of the range); a remarkably better FHG was observed using the softband.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

Optimal Choice for Improving the Hearing in Children with Unilateral Microtia and Atresia: Softband or Adhesive Adapter?

Liu

Chen²,

Yang³

et al. 2022

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: A nonsurgical bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA) is a well-established treatment for children with congenital unilateral microtia and atresia (UMA). To date, limited studies have evaluated the audiological characteristics of the different wearing modes in the same nonsurgical BCHA. Methods: Eighteen patients with UMA aged 5–24 years were included. Warble tones at frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz were presented to determine functional hearing gain (FHG) of hearing thresholds (in dB HL) in the sound field. The speech perception abilities were assessed by the speech discrimination score (SDS, in %) of monosyllables, disyllables, and sentences in quiet and noise using the Chinese Mandarin speech test materials. Hearing outcomes were evaluated with the ADHEAR™ worn on a softband and with an adhesive adapter. A correlational analysis was conducted to analyze the correlations between variables (e.g., age, height, weight, body mass index [BMI], bone conduction pure-tone threshold, and air conduction pure-tone threshold) and the differences in the two wearing modes. Results: The mean FHG (standard deviation, SD) at 0.5–4 kHz was 20.63 (3.94) dB HL with the adhesive adapter and 26.39 (3.15) dB HL with the softband. When aided with the BCHA, significant improvements in SDS were revealed in all Mandarin speech test material lists either in quiet or noise for both wearing modes. Compared with the adapter mode, the softband provided higher aided SDS values. Correctional analyses revealed that higher BMI values were positively associated with larger delta outcomes between the two coupling methods of the softband and adhesive adapter in patients with UMA. Furthermore, a larger delta average FHG of 0.5–4 kHz was consistently associated with larger delta monosyllabic SDS in quiet, disyllabic SDS in quiet, and disyllabic SDS in noise. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the hearing benefits of coupling methods using novel adhesive adapters and conventional softbands with the same audio processor (ADHEAR™). Under uniform internal settings, softband integration provided more hearing benefits than adhesive adapter integration, and the differences were more obvious in patients with higher BMI values. Besides, a brief measurement of FHG can be utilized to predict individualized speech perception levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

Optimal Choice for Improving the Hearing in Children with Unilateral Microtia and Atresia: Softband or Adhesive Adapter?

Liu

Chen²,

Yang³

et al. 2022

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 8 The average reported unaided WRS score in the adults using the ADH was around 40% at 65 dB SPL (the normal speech level). 21 , 22 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 The literature also reported an average hearing threshold benefit of roughly 20 dB HL and a mean word recognition score of 75%. Studies reporting on children aged 12 years or younger also showed an average improvement in WRS of 65% with the ADH system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Especially, since the research in the past years focused on improving and understanding language and speech perception in children with hearing loss, 2–7 with no studies exploring the impact on the quality of life in children with a Bonebridge or an Adhear 8 . The average reported unaided WRS score in the adults using the ADH was around 40% at 65 dB SPL (the normal speech level) 21,22,27,29–40 . The literature also reported an average hearing threshold benefit of roughly 20 dB HL and a mean word recognition score of 75%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children

Urík

Šikolová

Hošnová

et al. 2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The young population requires early rehabilitation of their hearing loss for normal cognitive, auditive hence social development. All of which, in turn, may have an impact on quality of life (QoL). This study aims to evaluate QoL between two different bone conduction (BC) hearing devices: a noninvasive adhesive hearing aid (Adhear [ADH]) vs. an active transcutaneous implant (Bonebridge [BB]). Methods This study composed of 12 BB and 15 ADH users. Pure tone as well as speech in noise and quiet measurements were evaluated and compared to the Assessment in QoL questionnaire (AQoL‐6d). Results Freefield results showed significant improvements for both devices compared to the unaided condition ( p < .0001). Emphasis needs to be drawn on the different unaided level of conductive hearing loss as well as the indication range for both evaluated device groups: the ADH subjects exhibited a mean BC value of 9.50 ± 7.96 dB HL (the indication range up to 25 dB) and the BB subjects a mean of 23.33 ± 25.66 dB HL (the indication range up to 45 dB). Speech perception in quiet and in noise was significantly improved ( p < .05; p < .001, respectively). QoL was significantly improved for both treatments ( p < .05) but was not different among the devices, and the values were similar to their normal hearing, age, and sex‐matched control group. High correlations were found between QoL utility scores and improved PTA4 in the aided condition ( r 2 = .8839 and .7810 for BB and ADH, respectively). Conclusion Our results show that both devices offer significant beneficial audiological rehabilitations with significantly increased QoL. However, the underlying condition and the unaided degree of hearing loss, hence the required higher stimulation must be the deciding factor when opting for a hearing device, and this should be independent of age. Level of evidence 2c.

show abstract

“…According to the company information, the adhesive adapter is designed for single use and can remain on the skin for 3-7 days (9,12,15,18). Considering the statements in the questionnaires, in four out of 33 participants of the study, the adhesive adapter detached more than 2 times per day due to sweating.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a new non-implantable BCHD was introduced, the ADHEAR (12,13). System, especially for small children (14)(15)(16). This system works without putting any pressure on the skin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective, monocentric, repeated-measures study of ADHEAR in adults with middle ear disease

Dakah¹,

Fischer²,

Just³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the audiological performance of the ADHEAR system and to compare it with a softband BAHA system in adults with middle ear disease. Study Design: Prospective, single-subject, repeated-measures study Setting: Monocentric study Participants: In 23 patients with mild to moderate isolated conductive or combined hearing loss (CHL) the ADHEAR system was tested, where 12 of them were outside of the ADHEAR indication. In ten patients, testing was performed with the ADHEAR system and a softband BAHA system. A control group consisted of 10 patients with bilateral artificial occluded ear canal. Main outcome measures: Air and bone conduction thresholds and free-field monosyllable speech intelligibility thresholds in quiet and in noise were measured and evaluated in an unaided situation and aided situation. Furthermore, an ADHEAR questionnaire was assessed. Results: In patients with a middle ear disease compared to the unaided situation, the aided situations with the ADHEAR system and the softband BAHA system led to a significant improvement of speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise. In terms of the ADHEAR questionnaire, using the ADHEAR system patients reported about an improvement in sound localization, sound quality and speech intelligibility. Conclusions: The results show that patients with middle ear disease can benefit from the ADHEAR system, even if their hearing loss is outside of its indication. Outside the indication criteria of the ADHEAR system, it can be an option.

show abstract

Audiological benefit and subjective satisfaction with the ADHEAR hearing system in children with unilateral conductive hearing loss

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Optimal Choice for Improving the Hearing in Children with Unilateral Microtia and Atresia: Softband or Adhesive Adapter?

Optimal Choice for Improving the Hearing in Children with Unilateral Microtia and Atresia: Softband or Adhesive Adapter?

Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children

Prospective, monocentric, repeated-measures study of ADHEAR in adults with middle ear disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About