Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aid, Bone Anchored Hearing Aid, and ADHEAR: Case Series of 6 Patients with Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

Kitama, Tsubasa; Nishiyama, Takanori; Iwabu, Kaho; Wakabayashi, Tomonari; Shimanuki, Marie; Oishi, Naoki; Ozawa, Hiroyuki

doi:10.3390/app122312099

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The patients in the present study achieved benefits comparable to those reported in previous studies [17]. CC hearing devices have better aided hearing levels than ADHEAR [19], which may result from the difference not only in the transducer output, but also place of fixation, thickness of the fixation tape, and mass of the transducer. Regarding the fixation place, the thresholds for cartilage stimulation are better than those for mastoid stimulation at low frequencies when the simple-type transducer is used [28].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Devices Designed by Ear Impression and Computed Tomography

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ear molds and shells of hearing devices are generally designed using ear impressions. Computed tomography (CT) can provide information concerning ear structure, which can be utilized in computer-aided design to create hearing devices. This study aimed to compare the differences in hearing devices designed using either ear impressions or CT images. The ear chip of a cartilage conduction (CC) hearing device was designed based on the ear impression and CT images of patients with aural atresia. Three patients with bilateral (n = 1) or unilateral (n = 2) aural atresia participated in this study. The aided thresholds and subjective evaluations were compared. There were no serious problems with the use of either device, and no remarkable differences were observed regarding their respective audiological and subjective benefits. Regarding the subjective patient preferences, the hearing aid with the device designed via CT imaging was better in three ears of two patients, whereas the wearing comfort of the transducer was better for the device designed via the ear impression. The subjective evaluation of appearance varied among the cases. Finally, a device that was designed using CT findings was purchased for one patient. CT images can be utilized in computer-aided design to create CC hearing devices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…However, it can provide sufficient audiological benefits for daily use [16][17][18]. The aided thresholds of CC hearing devices are better than those of ADHEAR [19]. The performances of CC hearing devices in speech recognition are comparable to those of BC devices, such as BAHA, although the aided thresholds were slightly higher [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Devices Designed by Ear Impression and Computed Tomography

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A summary of the characteristics in the 12 included studies [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] is shown in Table 2 . There was a total of 447 patients with various peripheral auditory disorders (excluding those from study [ 24 ] due to overlapping participant groups with study [ 20 ]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Audiological Efficacy of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids and the Factors Influencing Their Clinical Application

Lee

Cao

et al. 2023

Audiology Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and benefit of cartilage conduction hearing aids (CC-HAs) and that factors that influence purchasing decisions. The hearing thresholds and functional gain following CC-HA wear were synthesised. A one-way analysis of variance compared the differences in the hearing thresholds and functional gain at individual frequencies and in patients with a variety of pathological changes. The synchronised aided hearing threshold and functional gain at 2.0 kHz were significantly better than at 0.5, 1.0, and 4.0 kHz. There was no significant difference in the synchronised unaided hearing thresholds across individual frequencies between 0.5 and 4.0 kHz. The synchronised functional gain in patients with atresia was significantly greater than in patients with aural atresia or stenosis and middle ear pathologies with normal ear canals. The acceptability of CC-HAs in terms of purchase decision is influenced by the condition of the external auditory meatus and severity of hearing loss, with the highest purchase rate seen in patients with aural atresia or stenosis. CC-HAs’ fitting procedure advantages and cosmetic considerations make these devices a viable and preferred choice for individuals with microtia and aural atresia. Additional research to evaluate the benefits towards emotional well-being is crucial to gain insights into the psychological impact of CC-HA use.

show abstract

“…Speech outcomes were equivalent, except for the 15dB SNR condition. Regarding the differences between BC devices and CC hearing aids, Nishiyama et al compared the benefits of the BAHA, CC hearing aids, and ADHEAR (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) [ 31 ]. They reported data from six patients who underwent comparative trials.…”

Section: Clinical Studies In Countries Other Than Japanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kitama et al measured the sound localization in patients with unilateral atretic ears using a CC hearing aid, BAHA, and ADHEAR on the atretic ear. Compared with the un-aided condition, no significant improvement was observed in any of the three aided conditions [ 31 ]. However, the comparison was provided for only one patient.…”

Section: Sound Localization In Bilateral Atretic Earsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids in Clinical Practice

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A relatively loud sound is audible when a vibrator is attached to the aural cartilage. This form of conduction is referred to as cartilage conduction (CC). In Japan, a new type of hearing aid has been developed using CC and has been available in clinical practice since 2017. A clinical study conducted prior to its launch demonstrated its benefits, particularly in patients with aural atresia who were unable to use air conduction hearing aids. Several studies have been published on the benefits of CC hearing aids since their introduction into clinical practice. Most of the patients included in these studies had canal stenosis or aural atresia, and the purchase rates of CC hearing aids in these patients were relatively high. However, the number of patients with canal-open ears was small, with overall poor results in the trials, with the exception of patients with continuous otorrhea. CC hearing aids are considered a good option for compensating for hearing loss in ears with canal stenosis or atresia in both bilateral and unilateral cases. However, CC hearing aids are not currently considered the first choice for patients with a canal-open ear.

show abstract

Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aid, Bone Anchored Hearing Aid, and ADHEAR: Case Series of 6 Patients with Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Devices Designed by Ear Impression and Computed Tomography

Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Devices Designed by Ear Impression and Computed Tomography

A Systematic Review of the Audiological Efficacy of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids and the Factors Influencing Their Clinical Application

Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids in Clinical Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About