Active Middle Ear Implantation for Patients With Sensorineural Hearing Loss and External Otitis

Zwartenkot, Joost W.; Hashemi, Javad; Cremers, C.W.R.J.; Mulder, Jef J. S.; Snik, A.F.M.

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e31828f47c2

Cited by 35 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…50,54 The improvement in quality of life after implantation also remains relatively stable over time. 50,[55][56][57] The MET was demonstrated to be a costeffective solution at a cost of €16085 per QALY compared to no intervention. 55 Nevertheless, few papers evaluating safety outcomes show the rate of complications to be high.…”

Section: Rionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of active middle ear implants: A historical perspective and clinical outcomes

Kließ

Ernst

Wagner

et al. 2018

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective (s)Energy emitting, active middle ear implants (aMEI) have taken more than two decades of research to reach technological sophistication, medical safety, and regulatory approval to become a powerful tool in treating sensorineural, conductive, and mixed hearing loss. The present review covers this era.Data SourceLiterature found from searching Pubmed (MEDLINE); EMBASE, SciSearch, German Medical Science Journals and Meetings, and The Cochrane Library; and published as of February 2017. Study bibliographies were hand‐searched to find further materials.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating the safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and subjective outcomes of partially implantable aMEIs. Data were extracted on systems with regulatory approval and summarized narratively. Meta‐analyses were conducted for aMEIs with more than 25 publications. Study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal for quantitative data synthesis was carried out by two reviewers.ResultsFour hundred thirty‐one studies included in narrative synthesis describe that albeit good audiological outcomes, clinical safety and (dis)investment are major barriers to continued market access. The synthesised risk of adverse events was three fold with the MET than with the VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE. With the latter system, audiological outcomes were stable and similar for all indications and age groups.ConclusionTo date, the majority of the literature covers the clinical application of the VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE system as it is applicable to a wide range of otologic and audiological conditions, particularly with the introduction of couplers to extend its clinical reach. The MAXUM and MET still have to find their way into surgical routine.Level of Evidence:

show abstract

Section: Rionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of active middle ear implants: A historical perspective and clinical outcomes

Kließ

Ernst

Wagner

et al. 2018

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, because QOL-HISQUI 29 Significant changes in self-reported QOL questionnaires were found in our study. Overall, patient satisfaction with the VSB was very good, suggesting that patients perceived system benefit in their daily life (24,26,27,30,31). Interestingly, our patients rated a mean HISQUI 29 score corresponding to ''very good'' sound quality.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Pros and Cons of Round Window Vibroplasty in Open Cavities

Lassaletta¹,

Calvino²,

Sánchez‐Cuadrado³

et al. 2015

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Upon application of the speech processor, the patient exhibited a marked improvement in the hearing threshold and great comfort of use, which were shown by the results of the APHAB Questionnaire. 6 , 7) These positive outcomes can be explained by involvement of both passive and active pathways. Use of the clip vibroplasty device alone can produce passive PORP effects by adjust the thickness of reinforcement cartilage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case of the Vibrant Soundbridge Stapes Coupler in Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) with stapes clip coupler placement at the stapes head has been used successfully to treat mixed hearing loss. Coupling between the floating mass transducer of the VSB and the stapes head is technically less demanding than incus vibroplasty and is more likely to generate a positive outcome without significantly changing residual hearing or resulting in medical or surgical complications. A 65-year-old man with bilateral mixed hearing loss and chronic otitis media underwent vibroplasty with a stapes clip coupler. Speech discrimination scores in both quiet and noise environments showed better functional gain with the VSB than with the use of a conventional hearing aid. The results of the present case show the feasibility of implanting a VSB with a stapes coupler in patients with mixed hearing loss due to chronic otitis media.

show abstract

Active Middle Ear Implantation for Patients With Sensorineural Hearing Loss and External Otitis

Cited by 35 publications

References 18 publications

The development of active middle ear implants: A historical perspective and clinical outcomes

The development of active middle ear implants: A historical perspective and clinical outcomes

Pros and Cons of Round Window Vibroplasty in Open Cavities

A Case of the Vibrant Soundbridge Stapes Coupler in Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About