No abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance and limits of an adhesive bone conduction hearing aid in patients implanted with an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant. Therefore, hearing performance and subjective benefit of patients with mixed and conductive hearing loss were assessed with both bone conduction devices. Study Design and Patients: This cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care center. Fifteen subjects, who had been implanted with an active transcutaneous device previously, were included and used the adhesive hearing device for 3 weeks instead of the implant. Subjects underwent two sets of audiological tests as well as assessments of quality of life at the beginning and at the end of the testing period. Results: Audiological results showed a significantly greater improvement in regards to functional hearing gain and word recognition scores with the transcutaneous bone conduction device than the nonimplantable adhesive device. Regression analysis showed a trend toward greater improvement with the transcutaneous device compared with the adhesive device in patients with an increasing bone conduction threshold. Hearing-specific and general quality-of-life questionnaires revealed no significant difference between the two devices. Conclusion: Patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss experience hearing gain with both, the adhesive device and the active transcutaneous device. The adhesive device may be a valuable alternative to the active transcutaneous device, depending on the individual bone conduction threshold.

In Group A the PTA improved by ≥10dB in 21/25(83%) cases; in Group B 18/28(63%). Group A showed a statistically significantly better improvement across all frequencies, while linear regression revealed a significant decrease of posttherapeutic PTA to 94.96% of the initial PTA (p = .037). The overall PTA improved by 24dB. Group A improved from 73dB to 41dB(-32dB) PTA, Group B improved from 76dB to 56dB PTA (-20dB) (p < .05). Group A showed a significant additional decrease of 12.8dB (p < .001).

In our opinion a pathological radiological result is insufficient to identify recurrent or residual disease within the tympanic cavity.

No abstract