Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them?

Siau, Derrick; Dhillon, B; Andrews, Russell J.; Green, K M J

doi:10.1017/s0022215115000602

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether or not SSD listeners opt for a CROS intervention might depend on several factors. Perceived limited benefits after a soft-band trial is one of the common reasons to decline implantation (Saroul et al, 2014; Siau et al, 2015). Alternatively, it might be that (congenital) SSD patients are not aware of the disadvantages of unilateral hearing (Lieu, 2004, 2013; Vila and Lieu, 2015), and therefore do not ask for clinical help.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound-localization performance of patients with single-sided deafness is not improved when listening with a bone-conduction device

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increased number of treatment options has become available for patients with single sided deafness (SSD), who are seeking hearing rehabilitation. For example, bone-conduction devices that employ contralateral routing of sound (CROS), by transmitting acoustic bone vibrations from the deaf side to the cochlea of the hearing ear, are widely used. However, in some countries, cochlear implantation is becoming the standard treatment. The present study investigated whether CROS intervention, by means of a CROS bone-conduction device (C-BCD), affected sound-localization performance of patients with SSD. Several studies have reported unexpected moderate to good unilateral sound-localization abilities in unaided SSD listeners. Listening with a C-BCD might deteriorate these localization abilities because sounds are transmitted, through bone conduction to the contralateral normal hearing ear, and could thus interfere with monaural level cues (i.e. ambiguous monaural head-shadow cues), or with the subtle spectral localization cues, on which the listener has learned to rely on. The present study included nineteen SSD patients who were using their C-BCD for more than five months. To assess the use of the different localization cues, we investigated their localization abilities to broadband (BB, 0.5-20 kHz), low-pass (LP, 0.5-1.5 kHz), and high-pass filtered noises (HP, 3-20 kHz) of varying intensities. Experiments were performed in complete darkness, by measuring orienting head-movement responses under open-loop localization conditions. We demonstrate that a minority of listeners with SSD (5 out of 19) could localize BB and HP (but not LP) sounds in the horizontal plane in the unaided condition, and that a C-BCD did not deteriorate their localization abilities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound-localization performance of patients with single-sided deafness is not improved when listening with a bone-conduction device

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, measuring quality of life and wellbeing using the concept of capabilities has gained more interest [6]. It can be expected that interventions that entail placing a percutaneous implant to improve hearing, may influence an individual in more ways than just solely altering hearing (e.g., the ability to participate in society versus the perceived disadvantages of these types of implants such as cosmetic and social concerns [7, 8]). This perspective will be considered in this trial as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery compared to the linear incision technique without soft tissue reduction for bone conduction hearing implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Calon

Hoof

Berge

et al. 2016

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOver the last years, less invasive surgical techniques with soft tissue preservation for bone conduction hearing implants (BCHI) have been introduced such as the linear incision technique combined with a punch. Results using this technique seem favorable in terms of rate of peri-abutment dermatitis (PAD), esthetics, and preservation of skin sensibility. Recently, a new standardized surgical technique for BCHI placement, the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique has been developed by Oticon Medical AB (Askim, Sweden). This technique aims to standardize surgery by using a novel surgical instrumentation kit and minimize soft tissue trauma.MethodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial is designed to compare the MIPS technique to the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation. The primary investigation center is Maastricht University Medical Center. Sixty-two participants will be included with a 2-year follow-up period. Parameters are introduced to quantify factors such as loss of skin sensibility, dehiscence of the skin next to the abutment, skin overgrowth, and cosmetic results. A new type of sampling method is incorporated to aid in the estimation of complications. To gain further understanding of PAD, swabs and skin biopsies are collected during follow-up visits for evaluation of the bacterial profile and inflammatory cytokine expression.The primary objective of the study is to compare the incidence of PAD during the first 3 months after BCHI placement. Secondary objectives include the assessment of parameters related to surgery, wound healing, pain, loss of sensibility of the skin around the implant, implant extrusion rate, implant stability measurements, dehiscence of the skin next to the abutment, and esthetic appeal. Tertiary objectives include assessment of other factors related to PAD and a health economic evaluation.DiscussionThis is the first trial to compare the recently developed MIPS technique to the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation for BCHI surgery. Newly introduced parameters and sampling method will aid in the prediction of results and complications after BCHI placement.Trial registrationRegistered at the CCMO register in the Netherlands on 24 November 2014: NL50072.068.14. Retrospectively registered on 21 April 2015 at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02438618. This trial is sponsored by Oticon Medical AB.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1662-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Comparison data are available for other BCHDs. It was reported that 4.5% of one clinics 602 BCHD caseload required device removal [ 16 ]; 2% due to pain, 1.2% due to infection, and the remaining due to a variety of other reasons. To conduct a comparative review of outcome with sufficient cases for the VSB and BB a multi-site study is required to overcome the relatively small number of implantations at individual sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effectiveness and reliability of the Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge auditory implants in clinical practice: Study design and methods for a multi-centre longitudinal observational study

Vickers

Canas

Degun

et al. 2018

Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implant and the Bonebridge bone conducting hearing device are hearing implants that use radio frequency transmission to send information from the sound processor to the internal transducer. This reduces the risk of skin problems and infection but requires a more involved surgical procedure than competitor skin penetrating devices. It is not known whether more complex surgery will lead to additional complications. There is little information available on the reliability of these systems and adverse medical or surgical events. The primary research question is to determine the reliability and complication rate for the Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge. The secondary research question explores changes in quality of life following implantation of the devices. The tertiary research question looks at effectiveness via changes in auditory performance.MethodThe study was designed based on a combination of a literature search, two clinician focus groups and expert review.A multi-centre longitudinal observational study was designed. There are three study groups, two will have been implanted prior to the start of the study and one group, the prospective group, will be implanted after initiation of the study. Outcomes are surgical questionnaires, measures of quality of life, user satisfaction and speech perception tests in quiet and in noise.ConclusionThis is the first multi-centre study to look at these interventions and includes follow up over time to understand effectiveness, reliability, quality of life and complications.

show abstract

Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them?

Cited by 20 publications

References 18 publications

Sound-localization performance of patients with single-sided deafness is not improved when listening with a bone-conduction device

Sound-localization performance of patients with single-sided deafness is not improved when listening with a bone-conduction device

Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery compared to the linear incision technique without soft tissue reduction for bone conduction hearing implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Evaluating the effectiveness and reliability of the Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge auditory implants in clinical practice: Study design and methods for a multi-centre longitudinal observational study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About