Vibrant Soundbridge System: Ein neuartiges Hörimplantat für Innenohrschwerhörige - Teil 2: Audiologische Ergebnisse -

Lenarz, T; Weber, B. P.; Issing, P. R.; Gnadeberg, D; K, Ambjørnsen; Mack, K. F.; Winter, Mark

doi:10.1055/s-2001-15707

Cited by 57 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the past, the VS showed frequently a better audiological outcome in functional gain, speech perception and subjective satisfaction compared to recent hearing aids [2,3,8,9] . However, the number of patients who will successfully benefi t from VS implantation is limited [1] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Benefit of Patients after Vibrant Soundbridge Implantation

Todt

Seidl

Ernst³

2005

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper compares the audiometric results of different digital Vibrant Soundbridge audio processors (D and Signia) of patients with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss. In a retrospective study, the audiometric results were evaluated and compared in terms of functional gain of warble tone measurements and speech audiometric data. 23 patients implanted between 1998 and 2003 with the Vibrant Soundbridge were included. At the time of implantation, they fulfilled the indication criteria for an implantation (7 patients with a D type, 16 with a Signia type while 3 patients changed from the D to the Signia type). The mean functional gain was increased from 22.8 dB (±6.5 dB SD) in the D type to 29.8 dB (±2.9) in the Signia type group. The speech-in-noise understanding was better in the Signia compared to the D type (59.3 ± 11.5 dB and 65.7 ± 10.1 dB, respectively). The latest upgrade of the external processor from the 3-channel, digital D type to the 8-channel, digital Signia type led in our data to an auditory benefit in all patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Benefit of Patients after Vibrant Soundbridge Implantation

Todt

Seidl

Ernst³

2005

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since 1996 more than 1000 patients have been implanted with the Vibrant Soundbridge device, more than 40 of them at the Medical University of Hannover (Lenarz et al, 1998(Lenarz et al, , 2001. In this study the audiometric test results of these patients were analysed and the fitting of the audio processor was optimized using reverse transfer function (Winter et al, 2002).…”

Section: Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of reverse transfer function (RTF) in the fitting procedure of implantable hearing devices

Winter¹,

Weber²,

Lenarz³

2005

Cochlear Implants Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group II ( p > 0.001), whereas only wave V latency and amplitude were improved in Group 1 ( p < 0.01). These results (see Figure 2) show that the changes due to auditory deprivation are greatly reversible under electrical stimulation. DiscussionEABRs have been obtained in several multichannel CI devices (Pelizzone et al., 1989; Shallop et al., 1990; Brown et al., 1994; Gallego et al., 1996; Brown et al., 1999; Gordon et al., 2002), mainly in adult patients and/or after several months of electrical stimulation. All patients of our study were children and most of them were implanted before the age of 5 years. This could explain the differences that we observed such as longer latencies in the intraoperative EABR recorded in congenitally deafened children (Group II, near 4.5 ms instead of 3.8-4 ms as in most studies). These findings could be due to a reduced number of neurons and/or an impaired myelination in the central auditory pathways as recently suggested by animal studies of immature auditory pathways (Hardie and Shepherd, 1999). Electrical stimulation induced different changes in early congenitally deafened children (Group II) and in progressively deafened children (Group I). This could indicate that more profound changes were induced by cochlear implantation in congenitally deafened children (maturation or plastic modifications of the neural circuits) than in progressively deafened children. These data are consistent with those found by others in cortical potentials and support the concept of early implantation in congenitally deafened children (Ponton et al., 1999).

show abstract

“…Von besonderem Interesse ist ein standardisiertes Vorgehen, sodass zum einen geeignete Patienten frühestmöglich mit einem CI versorgt und rehabilitiert werden kön-nen, zum anderen (noch) nicht geeignete Patienten sachgerecht beraten und mit alternativen Hilfsmitteln,wie z.B.implantierbaren Mittelohrhörgeräten [26,28,7] oder konventionellen Hörgeräten, versorgt werden können.…”

Section: Allgemeine Voraussetzungenunclassified

Kochleaimplantat bei Erwachsenen: Indikation und Durchführung

Kempf

Büchner

Stöver

2003

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the technical point of view, cochlear implant (CI) surgery in adults is a well established procedure. Pre- and postoperative evaluation, surgical approach and rehabilitation programs are standardized, presenting CI as a low risk procedure with rare complications similar to those of middle ear surgery. Modern advanced CI devices offer technical reliability and multiple speech encoding strategies and recently, even small processors which are worn behind the ear. Further technical advances are continuously available, even for implanted patients. Upgrading is usually easy because the outer parts of the implant are exchangeable and software upgrades can be transmitted transcutaneously to the implant. Assuming that medical and rehabilitation requirements are available, there are only very few indications against CI in adults. Candidate patients should therefore be transferred to CI-centres where a decision can be taken depending on presurgical evaluation results.

show abstract

Vibrant Soundbridge System: Ein neuartiges Hörimplantat für Innenohrschwerhörige - Teil 2: Audiologische Ergebnisse -

Cited by 57 publications

References 3 publications

Hearing Benefit of Patients after Vibrant Soundbridge Implantation

Hearing Benefit of Patients after Vibrant Soundbridge Implantation

The use of reverse transfer function (RTF) in the fitting procedure of implantable hearing devices

Kochleaimplantat bei Erwachsenen: Indikation und Durchführung

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About