Vibrant Soundbridge can improve the most comfortable listening level in sensorineural hearing loss: Our experience with 61 patients

Jung, Jinsei; Kim, Jin Won; Moon, In Seok; Kim, Sung Huhn; Choi, Jae Young

doi:10.1111/coa.12958

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When analyzed by each frequency, significant hearing gains were reached at each frequency from 500 to 4,000 Hz. Jung et al reported significant gains at 2,000 and 4,000 Hz but not at 1,000 and 3,000 Hz.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Long‐Term Outcome of Hearing Rehabilitation With An Active Middle Ear Implant

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the audiological and long‐term medical and technical follow‐up outcomes of an active middle ear implant. Methods This was a retrospective medical chart analysis of all patients provided with an active middle ear implant in a tertiary academic medical referral center between September 1, 1998, and July 31, 2015. Main outcome measures were medical and technical complications, revisions, reimplantations, explantations, coupling approaches, mean time of use, pre‐ and postoperative hearing thresholds, functional hearing gain across frequencies (250–4,000 Hz), and Freiburg monosyllablic word test at 65 dB. Results One hundred and three patients were identified. Fifteen were implanted bilaterally (n = 118 Vibrant Soundbridge devices [MED‐EL, Innsbruck, Austria]). Seventy‐seven devices were implanted for sensorineural and 41 for mixed and conductive hearing loss. Patients used the implant for 6.7 years (range 0.7 months–17.9 years) on average. Ninety‐one patients (77.12%) were using the device at the end of the observation period. An overall complication rate of 16.1% was observed. The revision and explantation rates were higher for devices implanted between 2004 and 2006. The device failure rate was 3.4%. Audiological evaluation showed significant hearing gains for both hearing loss patient groups. Conclusion This long‐term follow‐up reveals the reliability of the active middle ear implant in a single center. Overall complication rate and device failure rate are acceptable. The complication rate was higher during implementation of alternative coupling approaches. The audiological benefit was satisfactory in patients with all hearing loss types. The majority of implanted patients used the implant at the end of the observation period. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope , 129:477–481, 2019

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Long‐Term Outcome of Hearing Rehabilitation With An Active Middle Ear Implant

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assuming that reducing the MCL is an important factor for suppressing tinnitus, the VSB might have an advantage over other HAs used for tinnitus suppression. A recent report compared the MCL in HA-aided and VSB-aided conditions [26] and found that hearing gains were similar under both aided conditions, but that the VSB-aided condition showed better improvement in MCL, to a value comparable to that of the normal hearing population. This phenomenon is explained by a mass effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As MCL decreased with VSB, THI scores significantly decreased in the subjects. Lowering MCL is critical in auditory rehabilitation of patients with sensorineural hearing loss, because maximum speech intelligibility is achieved at levels higher than the MCL [25,26]. Thus, patients with a high MCL have difficulty in understanding routine conversation at moderate sound levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A loaded FMT provides system stiffness, and it results in increased hearing gain at mid to high frequencies, and decreased hearing gain at low frequencies [27]. Lowering the MCL is attributable to robust amplifications of the mid to high frequencies [26]; thus, VSB is superior to conventional Has in terms of lowering the MCL. Further studies on tinnitus suppression, comparing HA-aided and VSB-aided conditions could verify the importance of lowering MCL in tinnitus management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Vibrant Soundbridge on tinnitus accompanied by sensorineural hearing loss

Lee

Moon

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Tinnitus is a common symptom among patients with hearing loss, and many studies have reported successful tinnitus suppression with hearing devices. Active middle ear implantation of the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) is a good alternative to existing hearing devices. This study evaluated the effects of VSB implantation on tinnitus and sought to identify the main audiological factor that affects tinnitus suppression. Methods The study participants were 16 adults who had tinnitus with sensorineural hearing loss, and who underwent VSB implantations. Pure-tone audiometry; word recognition test; tinnitus handicap inventory (THI); and visual analog scale (VAS) assessment of loudness, awareness, and annoyance were performed before and 12 months after surgery. Changes in hearing threshold, word recognition scores (WRS), THI scores, and VAS scores were analyzed.

show abstract

“…In addition, we previously described MCL level improvement with VSB in sensorineural hearing loss. 17 Lowering the MCL level is important to helping facilitate communication with others and to reducing conversation handicaps. Our data indicated significant improvement in MCL level after direct coupling to the OW.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Experience of Vibroplasty With Direct Coupling to the Oval Window Without Use of a Coupler

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis: To investigate the efficacy of direct implantation of a Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) implant in the oval window (OW) without the use of an OW coupler in patients with severe mixed hearing loss. Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Methods: A total of 62 patients underwent VSB implantation between July 2016 and December 2018 at Severance Hospital in Seoul, South Korea. Among them, eight patients (nine ears) with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss were implanted with a VSB directly in the OW. A floating mass transducer (FMT) was attached to the stapes footplate and covered with tragal cartilage. The outcomes were evaluated using pure-tone audiogram and speech audiogram preoperatively and postoperatively. Word recognition score (WRS; % correct) were measured at the most comfortable loudness (MCL) level to evaluate speech perception. Results: All cases posed difficulty with round window vibroplasty during surgery, and eventually, an FMT was appropriately placed in the OW without a coupler. Preoperative and postoperative bone conduction thresholds were not different. VSBaided threshold improved in terms of functional and effective gains. Interestingly, four cases showed improved air conduction thresholds without the use of a VSB. In addition, MCL level with a VSB was significantly lower than that with a hearing aid, and VSB-aided WRS improved over time. Conclusions: Direct implantation of a VSB in the OW without the use of a coupler showed favorable hearing outcomes, and the OW vibroplasty was safe. Direct OW vibroplasty without a coupler is a reliable procedure and can be a good option for hearing rehabilitation in patients with severe mixed hearing loss.

show abstract

Vibrant Soundbridge can improve the most comfortable listening level in sensorineural hearing loss: Our experience with 61 patients

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Long‐Term Outcome of Hearing Rehabilitation With An Active Middle Ear Implant

Long‐Term Outcome of Hearing Rehabilitation With An Active Middle Ear Implant

Effects of Vibrant Soundbridge on tinnitus accompanied by sensorineural hearing loss

Clinical Experience of Vibroplasty With Direct Coupling to the Oval Window Without Use of a Coupler

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About