Precise selection of bone conduction hearing devices for congenital malformation of the middle and outer ear (CMMOE).
Saved in:
| Title: | Precise selection of bone conduction hearing devices for congenital malformation of the middle and outer ear (CMMOE). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Zou, YiHui, Wang, QingSen, Liu, Chang, Ren, LiYao, Sun, XiuLi, Yang, ShiMing |
| Source: | Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Supplement). Nov2023 Supplement, Vol. 143, pS49-S53. 5p. |
| Subjects: | External ear abnormalities, Middle ear abnormalities, Conductive hearing loss, Bone conduction, Research funding, Hearing aids, Treatment effectiveness, Audiometry, Descriptive statistics, Communication, One-way analysis of variance, Comparative studies, Hearing |
| Abstract (English): | Background: No selection criteria for the four bone conduction hearing devices yet. Aims/Objectives: To compare effectiveness of four bone conduction hearing devices in patients with bilateral Congenital Malformation of the Middle and Outer Ear (CMMOE). Material and Methods: 24 Patients (25 ears) were divided into five groups: 1) Bone Anchored Hearing Aid softband (BAHA-s), 2) BAHA implant (BAHA-i nested within group 1), 3) Vibration Sound Bridge implant (VSB-i), 4) Bone Bridge implant (BB-i), and 5) Bone Conduction Hearing Aid softband (BCHA-s). One patient implanted VSB and BB. Auditory parameters were compared: 1. Communication, 2. Average Air Conduction Thresholds (ACT) of pure tone, 3. Sentence Recognition Scores in quiet (SRS-q) and noisy (SRS-n) settings. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were employed to compare the differences in ACT and SRS-q/n among the groups, a statistical significance level of P < 0.05 was applied. Results: After hearing aid usage, all 24 patients (25 ears) reached or approached the normal in communication (i.e. from difficult to smooth), average ACT and SRS-q/SRS-n (no difference among groups, p > 0.05). However, there was the difference in the optimal frequency of ACT and the absolute value of SRS-q/SRS-n for VSB/BAHA implants was higher than that for BB and BAHA softband. Conclusions and Significance: The precise selection of the four hearing devices mainly depends on patient's hearing level, the optimal frequency of ACT and absolute values of SRS-q/SRS-n. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Abstract (Chinese): | 背景：四种骨传导助听器尚无选择标准。 目的：比较四种骨传导听力设备对患有双侧中耳和外耳先天性畸形（CMMOE）的患者的有效性。 材料和方法：24 名患者（25 只耳朵）被分为五组：1) 骨锚式助听器软带(BAHA), 2) BAHA 植入物（包括在组 1 内）, 3) 振动声桥植入物 (VSB), 4) 骨桥植入物 (BB), 以及 5) 骨传导助听器软带 (BCHA)。 一名患者被植入VSB 和 BB。 比较了听觉参数：1. 交流, 2. 平均气导阈值纯音 (ACT), 3. 安静 (SRS-q) 和嘈杂 (SRS-n) 设置下的句子识别评分。 结果：使用助听器后, 所有 24 名患者（25 耳）的听力均达到或接近正常交流水平（即从困难到顺利）, 平均 ACT 和 SRS-q/SRS-n（组间没有差异, p>.05)。 然而, ACT 的最佳频率存在差异。VSB/BAHA 植入体的 SRS-q/SRS-n 绝对值高于 BB 和 BAHA 软带的。 结论及意义：四种助听器的具体选择取决于患者的听力水平、ACT 的最佳频率和 SRS-q/SRS-n 的绝对值。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Supplement) is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
