A Comparison Between Wireless CROS and Bone-anchored Hearing Devices for Single-sided Deafness

Finbow, Jennifer L; Bance, Manohar; Aiken, Steven J.; Gulliver, Mark; Verge, Janine; Caissie, Rachel

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000000762

Cited by 48 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Contralateral rerouting of signal (CROS) hearing aids [Bosman et al, 2003;Finbow et al, 2015;Hol et al, 2005;Wazen et al, 2003] and percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices [Faber et al, 2013;Martin et al, 2010;Stewart et al, 2011;Zeitler et al, 2012] have been proposed for the rehabilitation of SSD with different results. More recently, cochlear implant has been suggested for the rehabilitation of SSD [Arndt et al, 2011;Erbele et al, 2015;van Zon et al, 2015;Vermeire and Van de Heyning, 2009].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiological Results and Quality of Life of Sophono Alpha 2 Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Implant Users in Single-Sided Deafness

Bernardeschi

Russo

Nguyen³

et al. 2016

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-sided deafness (SSD) represents one of the most difficult audiological conditions to rehabilitate. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the audiological benefits and quality of life of patients affected by SSD who had previously been users of the Alpha 1® when upgrading them to the Sophono Alpha 2® external processor (Boulder, Colo., USA). Nine patients were included in the study. They underwent physical examination, free-field speech audiometry at 40 and 60 dB, a hearing-in-noise test (Hirsch's test and the squelch test), the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaire, and a specific questionnaire on patient satisfaction with Alpha 1. Afterwards, the Alpha 2 external processor was delivered to all patients, and the above-mentioned protocol was repeated after 1 month with the Alpha 2. A statistically significant improvement was found in the speech discrimination score at 40 dB and in the squelch test when using the Alpha 2 external processor compared to the Alpha 1. Alpha 2 had a good clinical tolerance and gave similar results in the specific questionnaire and the GBI to Alpha 1. In conclusion, the new Alpha 2 external processor represents a safe and effective device for the rehabilitation of SSD, and there is an audiological benefit to upgrading to the Alpha 2 external processor for patients who had previously been users of the Alpha 1. The improvement in quality of life is similar to that with other bone-anchored hearing devices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiological Results and Quality of Life of Sophono Alpha 2 Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Implant Users in Single-Sided Deafness

Bernardeschi

Russo

Nguyen³

et al. 2016

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding mild-to-profound USHL, bone conduction devices, contralateral routing of sound systems, and cochlear implants could be options for auditory rehabilitation. Although previous studies have shown a lack of beneficial effect of bone conduction devices or contralateral routing of sound systems regarding sound localization, speech perception is improved with these devices when speech is presented to the poorer ear [ 25 , 26 ]. Single-sided deafness is now being considered as an indication for cochlear implantation and many studies have reported the benefits of cochlear implantation regarding sound localization, speech perception in noisy environments, and tinnitus [ 27 , 28 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of minimal hearing loss in South Korea

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the prevalence of minimal hearing loss (MHL) in South Korea based on the 2010 to 2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. A total of 16,630 representative individuals (older than 12 years) who completed ear examinations and structured questionnaires were analyzed. Only participants who had normal tympanic membranes were included. MHL was categorized into the following three groups: 1) unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USHL, pure-tone average (PTA) ≥ 15 dB in the affected ear), 2) bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (BSHL, 15 dB ≤ PTA < 40 dB in both ears), and 3) high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss (HFSHL, two or more high-frequency thresholds > 25 dB in either ear). To evaluate clinical symptoms, subjective hearing status, tinnitus, and quality of life of each MHL group were compared to those of normal-hearing listeners. The use of hearing aids (HAs) was also investigated in the MHL population. The prevalence of normal hearing and MHL were 58.4% and 37.4%, respectively. In univariate analyses, the prevalence of MHL increased with age. It was significantly increased in males. Regarding clinical symptoms, 13.0% and 92.1% of participants with MHL reported difficulties with hearing and annoying tinnitus, respectively. In multivariate analyses, these proportions were significantly higher in the MHL groups than in normal-hearing listeners. Participants with MHL also showed significantly lower Euro Qol-5D index scores than did normal-hearing listeners. Regarding hearing rehabilitation, among minimally hearing impaired participants with subjective hearing loss, only 0.47% of individuals used HAs. Our results reveal that MHL is common in South Korea. It is associated with significant subjective hearing loss, tinnitus, and poor quality of life. Therefore, clinicians need to pay attention to this special group and provide proper counselling and rehabilitative management.

show abstract

“…Not only was this effect significant but mean occlusion in dB was comparable to the natural open ear canal, 23 suggesting an absence of occlusion. The combination of these improvements in hearing aid technology over the past several years have led to an increase in adoption and acceptance of CROS 27,28 and BiCROS 29 devices.…”

Section: Contralateral Routing Of Signalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[31][32][33][34] Recent studies have found no significant differences in objective or subjective outcomes with new wireless CROS technology compared with osseointegrated bone conduction implants. 27,28,35 The adoption and acceptance of current CROS technology has not only increased but seems to be comparable to that of surgical rerouting solutions. 28 Other benefits of CROS hearing aids include the design and ease of use.…”

Section: Benefits Of Cros Amplificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…27,28,35 The adoption and acceptance of current CROS technology has not only increased but seems to be comparable to that of surgical rerouting solutions. 28 Other benefits of CROS hearing aids include the design and ease of use. In 2012, 24 a survey of nearly 4,000 hearing aid candidates found that eliminating the visibility of the hearing aid would increase the likelihood of adopting hearing aids by 29 to 38%.…”

Section: Benefits Of Cros Amplificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonsurgical Management of Single-Sided Deafness: Contralateral Routing of Signal

Snapp

2019

J Neurol Surg B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, an increasing research effort has been directed toward remediation of single-sided deafness. Contralateral routing of signal (CROS) is the longest standing rehabilitation solution for individuals with single-sided deafness. The primary goal of CROS technology is to transfer the signal received at the deaf ear to the better hearing ear, thereby reducing the impact of the acoustic head-shadow. This allows for individuals with single-sided deafness to regain access to sounds located at the deaf ear. The hearing deficits associated with single-sided deafness are often debilitating. While surgical management of single-sided deafness is on the rise, CROS hearing aids offer a nonsurgical option to compensate for some of the deficits that occur when a listener is limited to a single ear. Limitations of early CROS devices resulted in poor adoption and acceptance in those with single-sided deafness. Following significant advances in both design and technology, the acceptance of CROS devices has increased in recent years. This paper reviews relevant literature in CROS application for the management of single-sided deafness. Technological advances, benefits, limitations, and clinical considerations are also reviewed in this article.

show abstract

A Comparison Between Wireless CROS and Bone-anchored Hearing Devices for Single-sided Deafness

Abstract: Comparisons of CROS and BAHD need to be re-evaluated as both technologies have evolved. In our pilot study, both devices seem comparable, with the CROS avoiding the risks of surgery, and we recommend a trial of CROS in our center for first line treatment of single-sided deafness.

Cited by 48 publications

References 30 publications

Audiological Results and Quality of Life of Sophono Alpha 2 Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Implant Users in Single-Sided Deafness

Audiological Results and Quality of Life of Sophono Alpha 2 Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Implant Users in Single-Sided Deafness

Prevalence of minimal hearing loss in South Korea

Nonsurgical Management of Single-Sided Deafness: Contralateral Routing of Signal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About