Cargando…

A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE: To compare the audiological performance with the novel adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) to that with a passive bone conduction (BC) implant and to that with a bone conduction device (BCD) on a softband. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skarzynski, Piotr H., Ratuszniak, Anna, Osinska, Kamila, Koziel, Magdalena, Krol, Bartlomiej, Cywka, Katarzyna B., Skarzynski, Henryk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6641089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002323
_version_ 1783436700952821760
author Skarzynski, Piotr H.
Ratuszniak, Anna
Osinska, Kamila
Koziel, Magdalena
Krol, Bartlomiej
Cywka, Katarzyna B.
Skarzynski, Henryk
author_facet Skarzynski, Piotr H.
Ratuszniak, Anna
Osinska, Kamila
Koziel, Magdalena
Krol, Bartlomiej
Cywka, Katarzyna B.
Skarzynski, Henryk
author_sort Skarzynski, Piotr H.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the audiological performance with the novel adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) to that with a passive bone conduction (BC) implant and to that with a bone conduction device (BCD) on a softband. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject repeated measure in three situations: unaided, with conventional BCDs (passive implant or on softband), and with the ADHEAR. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Ten subjects with conductive hearing loss were evaluated with the ADHEAR. Five of these were users of a passive BC implant (Baha Attract with Baha4); five received a BCD (Baha4) on a softband for test purposes. INTERVENTION: Use of non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Air and bone conduction thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in quiet and noise were assessed. RESULTS: Users of the passive BC implant received comparable hearing benefit with the ADHEAR. The mean aided thresholds in sound field measurements and speech understanding in quiet and noise were similar, when subjects were evaluated either with the ADHEAR or the passive BC implant. The audiological outcomes for the non-implanted group were also comparable between the ADHEAR and the BCD on softband. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our initial data, the ADHEAR seems to be a suitable alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for medical reasons cannot or do not want to undergo surgery for a passive BC implant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6641089
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66410892019-09-16 A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss Skarzynski, Piotr H. Ratuszniak, Anna Osinska, Kamila Koziel, Magdalena Krol, Bartlomiej Cywka, Katarzyna B. Skarzynski, Henryk Otol Neurotol Audiology OBJECTIVE: To compare the audiological performance with the novel adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) to that with a passive bone conduction (BC) implant and to that with a bone conduction device (BCD) on a softband. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject repeated measure in three situations: unaided, with conventional BCDs (passive implant or on softband), and with the ADHEAR. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Ten subjects with conductive hearing loss were evaluated with the ADHEAR. Five of these were users of a passive BC implant (Baha Attract with Baha4); five received a BCD (Baha4) on a softband for test purposes. INTERVENTION: Use of non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Air and bone conduction thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in quiet and noise were assessed. RESULTS: Users of the passive BC implant received comparable hearing benefit with the ADHEAR. The mean aided thresholds in sound field measurements and speech understanding in quiet and noise were similar, when subjects were evaluated either with the ADHEAR or the passive BC implant. The audiological outcomes for the non-implanted group were also comparable between the ADHEAR and the BCD on softband. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our initial data, the ADHEAR seems to be a suitable alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for medical reasons cannot or do not want to undergo surgery for a passive BC implant. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019-08 2019-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6641089/ /pubmed/31295197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002323 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of Otology & Neurotology, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
spellingShingle Audiology
Skarzynski, Piotr H.
Ratuszniak, Anna
Osinska, Kamila
Koziel, Magdalena
Krol, Bartlomiej
Cywka, Katarzyna B.
Skarzynski, Henryk
A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss
title A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss
title_full A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss
title_fullStr A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss
title_short A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss
title_sort comparative study of a novel adhesive bone conduction device and conventional treatment options for conductive hearing loss
topic Audiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6641089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002323
work_keys_str_mv AT skarzynskipiotrh acomparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT ratuszniakanna acomparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT osinskakamila acomparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT kozielmagdalena acomparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT krolbartlomiej acomparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT cywkakatarzynab acomparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT skarzynskihenryk acomparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT skarzynskipiotrh comparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT ratuszniakanna comparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT osinskakamila comparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT kozielmagdalena comparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT krolbartlomiej comparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT cywkakatarzynab comparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss
AT skarzynskihenryk comparativestudyofanoveladhesiveboneconductiondeviceandconventionaltreatmentoptionsforconductivehearingloss