Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

Jakob, Till F.; Speck, Iva; Rauch, Ann-Kathrin; Hassepaß, Frederike; Ketterer, Manuel Christoph; Beck, Rainer; Aschendorff, Antje; Wesarg, Thomas; Arndt, Susan

doi:10.1007/s00405-021-06634-7

Cited by 19 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This represents a large increase in maximum 4PTA BC tolerable for a BAHS, especially when comparing to the first BAHSs, which were designed for a maximum 4PTA BC of 35–40 dB [ 1 ]. Additionally, the Osia system is indicated in single-sided deafness (SSD) similarly to other BAHS [ 2 ]. The advantage of Osia with a larger gain at higher frequencies compared to passive BAHS has been reported [ 3 , 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®

Rauch

Wesarg

Aschendorff

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The new active transcutaneous partially implantable osseointegrated system Cochlear™ Osia® System is indicated in case of conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL/MHL) with a maximum average bone conduction hearing loss of 55 dB, or in single-sided deafness (SSD). The implant directly stimulates the bone via a piezoelectric transducer and is directed by an external sound processor. We conducted a monocentric retrospective longitudinal within-subject clinical study at our tertiary academic referral center. The aim was to investigate long-term data (2017–2021) on audiological outcomes and hearing-related quality of life for the Osia system. Methods Between 2017 and 2020, 22 adults (18: CHL/MHL; 3: SSD) were implanted with the Osia100 implant; seven received bilateral implants. As of 10/2020, the sound processor was upgraded to Osia 2. Results Mean Osia system use by 04/2021 was 30.9 ± 8.6 months (range 17–40 months). Unaided bone conduction thresholds were unchanged postoperatively. One patient had to be explanted because of prolonged wound infection. Aided hearing thresholds were significantly lower compared to the unaided thresholds preoperatively, along with a marked increase in speech recognition in quiet. Speech processor upgrade resulted in a stable benefit. Patients with CHL/MHL and SSD showed a similar improvement in self-rated hearing performance revealed by SSQ, APHAB, and HUI questionnaires. Conclusion The Osia system is a safe, effective and sustainable option for treatment of conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®

Rauch

Wesarg

Aschendorff

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…localization) was not observed between the samples. Jakob et al [46] also report a study wherein participants chose one of the three treatment options: 30 for cochlear implant, 16 for BCD and 13 for CROS hearing aids. Localization was only improved in the group of cochlear implant users.…”

Section: Evaluating Treatment Options For Single-sided Deafnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implantation for paediatric and adult cases of unilateral and asymmetric hearing loss

Thompson¹,

Brown²,

Dillon³

2022

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology &Amp; Head &Amp; Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of reviewChildren and adults with unilateral or asymmetric hearing loss (UHL/AHL) have poorer spatial hearing (e.g. speech understanding in complex maskers and localization) and quality of life compared with peers with normal hearing bilaterally. Patients with UHL/AHL experience limited benefits with contralateral-routing technologies (e.g. bone conduction, CROS hearing aid systems). Cochlear implantation allows for stimulation of the auditory pathway for the poorer hearing ear. The present study reviews the recent literature on outcomes of cochlear implant use for recipients with UHL/AHL. Recent findingsRecent research corroborates previous investigations of the significant benefits on measures of spatial hearing, tinnitus severity and quality of life for adult cochlear implant recipients. These benefits are also observed in pediatric cochlear implant recipients, with an association of better outcomes with younger ages at implantation for congenital cases and shorter durations of UHL/AHL for acquired cases. In addition, randomized trials demonstrate better outcomes with cochlear implant use versus contralateralrouting technologies.

show abstract

“…For instance, the patients' experience can be influenced by a fixed order of the trial periods used in these studies, 20,21 the different duration of trial periods 21 and whether other treatment options are offered (CI, remote microphone or in the ear hearing aid). [22][23][24][25] In literature, reported reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection are diverse and cover objective as well as subjective reasons. The most important reasons for rejection include limited benefit in hearing abilities, physical discomfort, the need for surgery, cosmetic reasons or a better experience with another device.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the methodological heterogeneity of these studies hinders the direct comparison of the BCD and CROS trial period outcomes. For instance, the patients' experience can be influenced by a fixed order of the trial periods used in these studies, 20,21 the different duration of trial periods 21 and whether other treatment options are offered (CI, remote microphone or in the ear hearing aid) 22–25 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 Less is known about the experience or preference of SSD patients with a CROS trial period or when both devices are sequentially trialed. The few studies 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 directly comparing the CROS and BCD trial periods highlight the high variability of the choice of treatment after the trial periods. However, the methodological heterogeneity of these studies hinders the direct comparison of the BCD and CROS trial period outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness

Wendrich

Heteren

Peters

et al. 2022

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly improve subjective speech communication and QoL in SSD patients. A trial period with these devices can help in making a well-informed choice of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing the choice of treatment made after a BCD and CROS trial period in adult SSD patients.Methods: Patients were randomized in the: "first BCD, then CROS" or "first CROS, then BCD" trial period group. After the BCD on headband and CROS were tested for 6 weeks each, patients choose for BCD, CROS or no treatment. Primary outcome was the distribution of choice of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the association between the choice of treatment and patient characteristics, reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection, device usage during the trial periods, and diseasespecific QoL outcomes.Results: Of 91 patients randomized, 84 completed both trial periods and made their choice of treatment: 25 (30%) BCD, 34 (40%) CROS, and 25 (30%) no treatment. No characteristics were found to be related to choice of treatment. Top three reasons for acceptance or rejection were: device (dis)comfort, sound quality and (dis)advantage of subjective hearing. Average daily device use during the trial periods was higher for CROS than for BCD. Choice of treatment was significantly related with both duration of device usage and greater improvement of QoL after the corresponding trial period. Conclusion:The majority of SSD patients preferred BCD or CROS over no treatment.Evaluating device usage, discussing treatment (dis)advantages and disease-specific

show abstract

Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

Cited by 19 publications

References 25 publications

Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®

Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®

Cochlear implantation for paediatric and adult cases of unilateral and asymmetric hearing loss

Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About