Pros and Cons of Round Window Vibroplasty in Open Cavities

Lassaletta, Luis; Calvino, Miryam; Sánchez‐Cuadrado, Isabel; Pérez-Mora, Rosa; Muñoz, Elena; Gavilán, Javiér

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000000763

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

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

“…Deafness resulting from VSB implantations has not been reported up to now. Transient facial paresis occurred only in one of 12 patients in a trial published by Lassaletta et al 179 . In the further course, dislocations of the FMT were observed in 1.8–8% of the patients treated with a VSB 84 105 180 181 182 183 184 185 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…10 ), which is reflected in the user-oriented evaluation by means of the GBI 64 83 86 179 184 190 195 196 197 . Overall, the general benefit was rated higher than the improvement of the physical health and the social support 64 83 86 179 184 195 196 197 . For partially implantable active middle ear implants, all patients reported a benefit measured with the GBI 179 195 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Der allgemeine Nutzen wurde von den Patienten insgesamt höher bewertet als die Verbesserung der körperlichen Gesundheit und der sozialen Unterstützung 64 83 86 179 184 195 196 197 . Für die teilimplantierbaren aktiven Mittelohrimplantate zeigte sich für alle Patienten ein Benefit gemessen mit dem GBI 179 195 . Bei der Bewertung des allgemeinen Nutzens gaben 94–100% der befragten Patienten einen Benefit an, für die Verbesserung der sozialen Unterstützung 33–47% der Patienten.…”

Section: Ergebnisseunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ergebnisse und Lebensqualität nach Implantation aktiver Mittelohrimplantate

Lailach

Zahnert

2022

Laryngorhinootologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDie Versorgung mit implantierbaren Hörgeräten stellt einen Bereich mit hohem Entwicklungs- und Innovationspotenzial dar. Der vorliegende Übersichtsartikel gibt einerseits einen Überblick über derzeitige Indikationskriterien für die Versorgung mit aktiven Mittelohrimplantaten. Andererseits werden Zielparameter sowie Ergebnisse nach der Versorgung mit aktiven Mittelohrimplantaten beleuchtet. Hierbei liegt der Fokus auf audiologischen Ergebnissen sowie dem vom Patienten bewerteten Gesundheitszustand. Sogenannte „Patient Reported Outcome Measures“ (PROMs) nehmen mittlerweile auch in der Hörimplantatversorgung einen festen Stellenwert in der Evaluierung des Versorgungserfolges ein. Bisher ist die Studienlage sowohl hinsichtlich audiologischer als auch subjektiver Erfolgsparameter gemessen an den Evidenz-Level-Kriterien nicht befriedigend. Ein bislang fehlender internationaler Konsens über akzeptierte Outcomeparameter erschwert eine metaanalytische Aufarbeitung der Ergebnisse immens. In den bislang publizierten Untersuchungen konnte sowohl für Patienten mit einer Schallempfindungsschwerhörigkeit als auch für Patienten mit einer Schallleitungs- oder kombinierten Schwerhörigkeit ein besseres Sprachverstehen mit dem aktiven Mittelohrimplantat im Vergleich zur konventionellen Hörsystemversorgung ermittelt werden. Aktuelle Analysen zeigen eine signifikante Verbesserung der allgemeinen sowie der hörspezifischen Lebensqualität nach Versorgung mit einem aktiven Mittelohrimplantat. Zur Beurteilung des Versorgungserfolges bei Kindern existieren bislang keine validierten, hörspezifischen Lebensqualitätsmessinstrumente. Insbesondere bei Kindern mit komplexen Fehlbildungen des äußeren Ohres sowie des Mittelohres zeigen sich audiologisch zufriedenstellende Ergebnisse, welche zukünftig jedoch durch Lebensqualitätsmessungen untermauert werden müssen.

show abstract

“…This might be for two reasons: (1) a large air-bone gap in cases of mixed hearing loss can be spanned by bypassing the middle ear via active stimulation of the cochlea through the round window [3]; (2) hearing aids might not be tolerated due to discharging ears or due to anatomical alterations of the outer ear canal. Wound healing disorders and/or extrusion of the cable into the outer ear canal can occur in chronically infected ears and open cavities [8, 9]. Therefore, subtotal petrosectomy (SP) with fat obliteration and blind sac closure of the outer ear canal prior to provision of an auditory implant has been performed in these cases since the 1990s on cochlear implant (CI) candidates [10, 11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Two-Stage Subtotal Petrosectomy and Round Window Vibroplasty on Bone Conduction Thresholds

Prenzler

Gruber

Lenarz

et al. 2018

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate possible increases in bone conduction (BC) hearing thresholds in patients undergoing subtotal petrosectomy (SP) with fat obliteration and blind sac closure of the outer ear canal and subsequent round window vibroplasty. Patients and Interventions: Between 1997 and 2013, 43 patients (45 ears) with combined hearing loss and recurrent chronic otitis or status post formation of a radical cavity underwent SP around 6 months prior to implantation of a Vibrant Soundbridge^TM. Pure tone audiograms (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 6 kHz) prior to SP, after SP, prior to implantation, after implantation, and at first fitting around 5 weeks after implantation were collected and statistically analyzed. Results: The comparison between BC thresholds before SP and at first fitting showed an overall decline during the two-step procedure between 2.8 and 6 dB that was significant (p < 0.05, Student t test) at 2, 3, 4, and 6 kHz. Conclusion: In some cases, SP is the only way to eradicate chronic otitis and to achieve a suitable environment for the implantation of active middle ear implants. The present data demonstrate a relatively small but significant decline in BC thresholds throughout the whole procedure. Knowledge of its extent is mandatory for a correct indication for later implantation of a Vibrant Soundbridge^TM.

show abstract

Pros and Cons of Round Window Vibroplasty in Open Cavities

Cited by 27 publications

References 29 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

Ergebnisse und Lebensqualität nach Implantation aktiver Mittelohrimplantate

The Impact of Two-Stage Subtotal Petrosectomy and Round Window Vibroplasty on Bone Conduction Thresholds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About