Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness

Leterme, Gaëlle; Bernardeschi, Danièle; Bensemman, Anissa; Coudert, Cyrille; Portal, Jean-Jacques; Ferrary, Évelyne; Sterkers, Olivier; Vicaut, Éric; Frachet, Bruno; Grayeli, Alexis Bozorg

doi:10.1159/000381329

Cited by 29 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The CM may be a good alternative for patients with SSD, resulting in significantly better speech recognition in the most difficult listening situations, i.e., when noise is presented to the NH ear and speech to the SSD ear (S SSD N NH ) compared to the unaided condition. These results are comparable to those of the study of Leterme et al [2015], who investigated speech perception in noise in SSD listeners with another BCD on a headband (Alpha 1 ® ; Sophono, Boulder, CO, USA]. Their investigation in 18 adult SSD patients revealed a significant improvement in speech perception in noise with a BCD on a headband when the speech material was presented to the SSD ear and the noise from the front (S SSD N 0 ).…”

Section: Significantly Better Speech Perception In Noise In the CM Aisupporting

confidence: 80%

Bone Conduction Trial Device to Eliminate the Effect of Transcranial Attenuation: A Prospective Observational Study in Single-Sided Deaf Subjects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The contact mini TM (CM) is a nonimplantable, digital bone conduction device (BCD) consisting of 2 isolated units: an electronic housing, including the microphone, and a vibrator housing. The study investigated whether the CM can be used as an alternative test device for a BCD trial in single-sided deaf (SSD) adults with the microphone placed at the SSD ear and the vibrator at the normal-hearing (NH) ear (i.e., cross position). Methods: Twenty SSD adults (mean age: 50 [±13.2] years) participated in a 2-week BCD trial with the CM on the headband in cross position. Prior to the trial, the subjects performed adaptive speech-in-noise tests in an unaided condition. After the trial, speech-in-noise tests were performed with the CM in cross position (CM cross) and ipsilateral position, i.e., both units at the SSD ear (CM ipsi). Five different speech-in-noise configurations were used (S 0 N 0 ; S 0 N NH ; S 0 N SSD ; S 0°NNH+SSD ; and S SSD N NH). Speech reception thresholds (SRT) were analyzed comparing the unaided, the CM cross condition, and the CM ipsi condition. Results: Friedman's test revealed no significant differences in SRTs between the CM cross , CM ipsi , and the unaided condition for the S 0 N 0 , S 0 N NH , S 0 N SSD , and S 0°NNH+SSD configuration. However, in the S SSD N NH configuration, a significant effect was found (p < 0.001). Wilcoxon pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction indicated that SRTs in the CM cross condition were significantly lower (i.e., better speech understanding) than those in the unaided (p < 0.001) and the CM ipsi condition (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The CM may be a good alternative for patients with SSD, resulting in significantly better speech recognition when noise is presented to the NH ear and speech to the SSD ear. As the speech recognition results are better in the cross than the ipsilateral position, the CM cross might help to overcome the negative effect of transcranial attenuation during BCD trials.

show abstract

Section: Significantly Better Speech Perception In Noise In the CM Aisupporting

confidence: 80%

Bone Conduction Trial Device to Eliminate the Effect of Transcranial Attenuation: A Prospective Observational Study in Single-Sided Deaf Subjects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study included only patients who were scheduled to be implanted with a hearing device regardless of inclusion into the study. Comparable protocols have been employed before to compare a transcutaneous bone conduction device ( Leterme et al., 2015 ) or an active middle-ear implant ( Boeheim, Pok, Schloegel, & Filzmoser, 2010 ; Sziklai & Szilvassy, 2011 ; Truy, Philibert, Vesson, Labassi, & Collet, 2008 ; Uziel, Mondain, Hagen, Dejean, & Doucet, 2003 ) to acoustic hearing aids. Also, passive ( Briggs et al., 2015 ) and active transcutaneous devices ( Reinfeldt, Hakansson, Taghavi, Fredén Jansson, et al., 2015 ) have been studied in comparison to external stimulation via headband.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prediction of Speech Recognition in Noise With a Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing System by External Bone Conduction Stimulation With Headband

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction devices are treatment options for conductive and mixed hearing loss (CHL/MHL). For counseling of patients, realistic simulation of the functional result is desirable. This study compared speech recognition in noise with a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device to external stimulation with a bone conduction device fixed by a headband. Eight German-language adult patients were enrolled after a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device (Bonebridge, Med-El) was implanted and fitted. Patients received a bone conduction device for external stimulation (Baha BP110, Cochlear) fixed by a headband for comparison. The main outcome measure was speech recognition in noise (Oldenburg Sentence Test). Pure-tone audiometry was performed and subjective benefit was assessed using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaires. Unaided, patients showed a mean signal-to-noise ratio threshold of 4.6 ± 4.2 dB S/N for speech recognition. The aided results were −3.3 ± 7.2 dB S/N by external bone conduction stimulation and −1.2 ± 4.0 dB S/N by the semi-implantable bone conduction device. The difference between the two devices was not statistically significant, while the difference was significant between unaided and aided situation for both devices. Both questionnaires for subjective benefit favored the semi-implantable device over external stimulation. We conclude that it is possible to simulate the result of speech recognition in noise with a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device by external stimulation. This should be part of preoperative counseling of patients with CHL/MHL before implantation of a bone conduction device.

show abstract

“…The Sophono Alpha system is a bone-conductive transcutaneous implant that transmits the vibrations of the external processor thought an intact skin by means of a magnetic coupling. It was first described by Siegert [2011], and since then other papers have been published concerning the use of this device in different pathological conditions [Denoyelle et al, 2013;Escorihuela-García et al, 2014;Hol et al, 2013;Leterme et al, 2015;Magliulo et al, 2015;Siegert and Kanderske, 2013;Sylvester et al, 2013].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of the Alpha 1 ® system has already been described for conductive or mixed hearing loss in adults and children [Escorihuela-García et al, 2014;Denoyelle et al, 2013;Hol et al, 2013;Magliulo et al, 2015;Siegert and Kanderske, 2013;Sylvester et al, 2013]. The first prospective clinical study comparing the Alpha 1 system to CROS hearing aids in SSD has recently been published [Leterme et al, 2015]. The authors showed that the Alpha 1 was preferred to the CROS in 72% of patients and that hearing performance was significantly improved when using the Alpha 1 system compared to the unaided condition, whereas there were no statistically significant differences when comparing the audiological outcomes of the 2 devices.…”

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

Self Cite

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

Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness

Cited by 29 publications

References 32 publications

Bone Conduction Trial Device to Eliminate the Effect of Transcranial Attenuation: A Prospective Observational Study in Single-Sided Deaf Subjects

Bone Conduction Trial Device to Eliminate the Effect of Transcranial Attenuation: A Prospective Observational Study in Single-Sided Deaf Subjects

The Prediction of Speech Recognition in Noise With a Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing System by External Bone Conduction Stimulation With Headband

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About