Bilateral Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

Monksfield, Peter; Egan, Elizabeth; Reid, Andrew; Proops, David W.

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e3181b4ec6f

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…GBI has been used widely in ENT surgery and in a large number of interventions. Previous articles have been published giving GBI outcomes for VSB in all FMT placements [10][11][12] as well as specifically in round window vibroplasty, 13 BB used in all causes of hearing loss 11,14 and in SSD specifically, 15 BCHD, 11,[15][16][17] Esteem, 11 and conventional hearing aids. 10 An interesting systematic review was also published specifically comparing the GBI outcomes between a number of ENT interventions, including BCHD and MEI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Middle Ear and Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:This study used questionnaires to examine the patient-reported satisfaction with 2 hearing implant devices to determine the level of overall satisfaction with the devices, which, if any, factors predicted good or poor perceived outcomes, or whether there were any specific aspects of the devices where dissatisfaction was apparent. METHODS:A post-treatment questionnaire survey of 39 adult patients who had received a Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) or Bonebridge (BB) hearing implant, with at least 3 months of follow-up, was conducted using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Hearing Device Satisfaction Scale (HDSS). Satisfaction scores were compared to pre-and post-operative audiologic outcomes. The correlation between GBI and HDSS scores was also examined. RESULTS:A total of 28 of the 39 patients (72%) responded: 13 with a BB and 15 with a VSB at a mean of 13 months after implantation. The overall mean total GBI score was 30, with no significant differences across the groups. The responders generally reported that they were "satisfied" across most domains of the HDSS. In the study, 25 of the 28 responders were largely satisfied with their devices but 3 respondents were not. Two were known non-users, while one used the device but did not gain the benefit expected. It is instructive to note that all of these dissatisfied recipients were close to the manufacturer recommended limits for implantation of their respective devices at the time of surgery.Certain themes were identified within the patients' responses, indicating common aspects where satisfaction was poorer. CONCLUSION:This series of 28 implant recipients demonstrates high levels of satisfaction with implantable hearing devices across 2 different validated questionnaires. Implant teams could exercise caution and manage patient expectations if the patients are close to the recommended limits of a particular device.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Middle Ear and Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12, 24, 25 In 2001, Bosman et al evaluated sound localization and speech reception thresholds in noise and in quiet in 25 patients with bilateral BAHD. 26 They found that patients with bilateral BAHDs had significantly improved sound localization and improved speech recognition in quiet and in noise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6, 7 Moreover, subjective assessments indicate that patients prefer bilateral BAHD to unilateral BAHD and report improved overall quality of life when utilizing bilateral BAHD. 12, 13 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracochlear Measurements of Interaural Time and Level Differences Conveyed by Bilateral Bone Conduction Systems

Farrell

Hartl²,

Benichoux³

et al. 2017

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypothesis Intracochlear pressures (PIC) and stapes velocity (Vstap) elicited by bilaterally-placed bone anchored hearing devices (BAHD) will be systematically modulated by imposed interaural time (ITD) and level differences (ILD), demonstrating the potential for users of bilateral BAHD to access these binaural cues. Background BAHD are traditionally implanted unilaterally under the assumption that transcranial cross-talk limits interaural differences. Recent studies have demonstrated improvements in binaural and spatial performance with bilateral BAHD; however, objective measures of binaural cues from bilateral BAHDs are lacking. Methods Bone-conduction transducers were coupled to both mastoids of cadaveric specimens via implanted titanium abutments. PIC and Vstap were measured using intracochlear pressure probes and laser Doppler vibrometry, respectively, during stimulation with pure tone stimuli of varied frequency (250–4000 Hz) in ipsilateral, contralateral and bilateral ITD (−1 to 1 ms) and ILD (−20 to 20 dB) conditions. Results Bilateral stimulation produced constructive and destructive interference patterns that varied dramatically with ITD and stimulus frequency. Variation of ITD led to large variation of PIC and Vstap, with opposing effects in ipsilateral and contralateral ears expected to lead to “ITD to ILD conversion”. Variation of ILD produced more straightforward (monotonic) variations of PIC and Vstap, with ipsilateral-favoring ILD producing higher PIC and Vstap than contralateral-favoring. Conclusion Variation of ITDs and ILDs conveyed by BAHDs systematically modulated cochlear inputs. While transcranial cross-talk leads to complex interactions that depend on cue type and stimulus frequency, binaural disparities potentiate binaural benefit, providing a basis for improved sound localization and speech-in-noise perception.

show abstract

“…The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) is an 18-item self-assessment scale designed to measure benefit following otorhinolaryngological procedures (Robinson et al, 1996), including cochlear implantation (Ho et al, 2009). There are three subscale scores: general subscale (12 questions), social support (3 questions), and physical health (three questions), all of which address an aspect of how the procedure has benefited the patient.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Cognitive Abilities in High-Performing Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite being considered one of the most successful neural prostheses, cochlear implants (CIs) provide recipients with a wide range of speech perception performance. While some CI users can understand speech in the absence of visual cues, other recipients exhibit more limited speech perception. Cognitive skills have been documented as a contributor to complex auditory processing, such as language understanding; however, there are no normative data for existing standardized clinical tests assessing cognitive abilities in CI users. Here, we assess the impact of modality of presentation (i.e., auditory-visual versus visual) for the administration of working memory tests in high-performing CI users in addition to measuring processing speed, cognitive efficiency and intelligence quotient (IQ). Second, we relate performance on these cognitive measures to clinical CI speech perception outcomes.Methods: Twenty one post-lingually deafened, high-performing, adult CI users [age range: 52–88 years; 3 unilateral CI, 13 bimodal (i.e., CI with contralateral hearing aid), 5 bilateral CI] with clinical speech perception scores (i.e., AzBio sentences in quiet for the first-ear CI) of ≥60% were recruited. A cognitive test battery assessing auditory-visual working memory (AVWM), visual working memory (VWM), processing speed, cognitive efficiency and IQ was administered, in addition to clinical measures of speech perception in quiet (i.e., AzBio sentences in quiet). AzBio sentences were assessed in two conditions: first-ear CI only, and best-aided everyday wearing condition. Subjects also provided self-reported measures of performance and benefit from their CI using standardized materials, including the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant questionnaire (NCIQ).Results: High-performing CI users demonstrated greater VWM than AVWM recall. VWM was positively related to AzBio scores when measured in the first-ear CI only. AVWM, processing speed, cognitive efficiency, and IQ did not relate to either measure of speech perception (i.e., first-ear CI or best-aided conditions). Subjects’ self-reported benefit as measured by the GBI predicted best-aided CI speech perception performance.Conclusion: In high-performing CI recipients, visual presentation of working memory tests may improve our assessment of cognitive function.

show abstract

Bilateral Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

Cited by 27 publications

References 22 publications

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Middle Ear and Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Middle Ear and Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants

Intracochlear Measurements of Interaural Time and Level Differences Conveyed by Bilateral Bone Conduction Systems

Assessing Cognitive Abilities in High-Performing Cochlear Implant Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About