Safety and effectiveness of the <scp>V</scp>ibrant <scp>S</scp>oundbridge in treating conductive and mixed hearing loss: A systematic review

Ernst, Arne; Todt, Ingo; Wagner, J.

doi:10.1002/lary.25670

Cited by 55 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The surgical procedure is straight forward and nowadays considered to be a routine surgery procedure [Lenarz et al, 1998]. The safety and efficiency of the system have been proven many times over the last 2 decades [Fraysse et al, 2001;Hüttenbrink et al, 2010;Schwab et al, 2012;Maier et al, 2015;Ernst et al, 2016;Bruchhage et al, 2017].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiological Results with the SAMBA Audio Processor in Comparison to the Amadé for the Vibrant Soundbridge

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since its introduction in 1996, the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) has been upgraded with several improved generations of processors. As all systems are compatible, implanted patients can benefit from new technologies by upgrading to the newest processor type available. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the new (current) SAMBA processor with the previous Amadé processor. Methods: Twenty subjects monaurally implanted with a VSB and the Amadé processor tested the new SAMBA processor for a trial period of 4 weeks. We measured air conduction and bone conduction thresholds, unaided thresholds, and aided free field thresholds with both devices. Speech performance in quiet using the Freiburg monosyllabic test at 65 dB SPL (S 0 ) was compared. The speech intelligibility in noise was determined using the Oldenburg sentence test measured in different listening conditions (S 0 N VSB /S 0 N contra ) and microphone settings (omni/directional vs. adaptive directivity). Results: Word recognition scores in quiet with the SAMBA were still significantly lower than with the Amadé after the 4 weeks trial period but improved over the following year. Speech intelligibility with the SAMBA was significantly better than with the Amadé in omnidirectional mode and comparable with the Amadé in directional mode. Hence, the adaptive directionality provides an advantage in difficult hearing situations such as noisy environments. The subjective benefit was evaluated using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities-C questionnaire. Results of the questionnaires demonstrate an overall higher level of satisfaction with the new SAMBA speech processor than with the older processor. Conclusion: The SAMBA enables similar speech perception in quiet but more flexible adaptation in acoustically challenging environments compared to the previous Amadé processor.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiological Results with the SAMBA Audio Processor in Comparison to the Amadé for the Vibrant Soundbridge

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An active middle ear implant using the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB; MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) is another option for auditory rehabilitation in patients with mixed hearing loss who failed with conventional modalities. 2) The floating mass transducer (FMT) of the VSB can be placed on various middle ear structures either directly or using different types of couplers in order to deliver vibratory mechanical energy to the cochlea. 3) It is challenging to achieve sufficient hearing gain in patients with mixed hearing loss.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case of Middle Ear Implantation Using the Vibrant Soundbridge in a Patient with Bilateral Mixed Hearing Loss

Shin¹,

Gu²,

Kang³

et al. 2018

Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Late complications, (1 year or more postoperative) including implant or wire extrusion, dislocation of transducer/coupler assembly and loss of coupling (e.g., increase in in situ thresholds) need to be reported, as well as technical complications and device failures. If a revision surgery was necessary, it must be stated whether it was due to medical/ surgical (procedure) or device-related reasons [Ernst et al, 2016;Gavilan et al, 2015;Hobson et al, 2010;Lassaletta et al, 2016;Mohamad et al, 2016;Van Rompaey et al, 2011;Wazen et al, 2011;Zwartenkot et al, 2016].…”

Section: Reporting Of Surgical and Medical Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal Reporting Standards for Active Middle Ear Hearing Implants

Maier¹,

Baumann²,

Baumgartner³

et al. 2018

Audiol Neurotol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is currently no standardized method for reporting audiological, surgical and subjective outcome measures in clinical trials with active middle ear implants (AMEIs). It is often difficult to compare studies due to data incompatibility and to perform meta-analyses across different centres is almost impossible. A committee of ENT and audiological experts from Germany, Austria and Switzerland decided to address this issue by developing new minimal standards for reporting the outcomes of AMEI clinical trials. The consensus presented here aims to provide a recommendation to enable better inter-study comparability.

show abstract

Safety and effectiveness of the Vibrant Soundbridge in treating conductive and mixed hearing loss: A systematic review

Cited by 55 publications

References 37 publications

Audiological Results with the SAMBA Audio Processor in Comparison to the Amadé for the Vibrant Soundbridge

Audiological Results with the SAMBA Audio Processor in Comparison to the Amadé for the Vibrant Soundbridge

A Case of Middle Ear Implantation Using the Vibrant Soundbridge in a Patient with Bilateral Mixed Hearing Loss

Minimal Reporting Standards for Active Middle Ear Hearing Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About