The impact of the Cochlear™ Osia® 2 System on patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss: A comparison with Cochlear™ Baha® Attract System outcomes

IF 2.6 4区 综合性期刊 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Kyeong-Suk Park, Hong-Chan Kim, Sungsu Lee, Hyong-Ho Cho
{"title":"The impact of the Cochlear™ Osia® 2 System on patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss: A comparison with Cochlear™ Baha® Attract System outcomes","authors":"Kyeong-Suk Park, Hong-Chan Kim, Sungsu Lee, Hyong-Ho Cho","doi":"10.1177/00368504241280252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveThis prospective study assessed the efficacy of the Cochlear™ Osia<jats:sup>®</jats:sup> 2 System compared to the previous Baha<jats:sup>®</jats:sup> Attract System in patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss (MHL/CHL).MethodsIn this prospective case-control study, 10 patients (2 men and 8 women) with MHL/CHL were implanted with the Osia<jats:sup>®</jats:sup> 2 System. Their audiological outcomes were compared with 13 patients (2 men and 11 women) who had previously been implanted with the transcutaneous Baha<jats:sup>®</jats:sup> Attract system. We compared the complications and compliance of the two groups. Also, in the Osia 2 System group, subjective satisfaction was assessed using the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire.ResultsComplications such as poor magnetization, pain &amp; infection, and abnormal noise were more common in the Baha Attract group, although not statistically significant. Also, the Osia 2 group exhibited better compliance. Subjective satisfaction was assessed using the K-IOI-HA and APHAB questionnaires with the Osia 2 group, revealing significantly improved scores in ease of communication, reverberation, background noise, and higher K-IOI-HA scores post-implantation. Postoperative-aided thresholds with both systems were significantly lower than preoperative-unaided thresholds, with the Osia 2 System demonstrating notably high satisfaction levels. Although both systems showed similar preoperative and postoperative word-recognition scores, the Osia 2 System provided greater audiological gain, especially at 2 kHz and 4 kHz frequencies. Additionally, the functional gain of both systems was comparable across all frequencies.ConclusionsThe Osia 2 System demonstrated high subjective satisfaction and improved audiological outcomes compared to the Baha Attract system in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Its superior audiological gain, particularly at critical frequencies, along with better compliance, suggests it as a favorable option for this patient population.","PeriodicalId":56061,"journal":{"name":"Science Progress","volume":"27 1","pages":"368504241280252"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Progress","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504241280252","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveThis prospective study assessed the efficacy of the Cochlear™ Osia® 2 System compared to the previous Baha® Attract System in patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss (MHL/CHL).MethodsIn this prospective case-control study, 10 patients (2 men and 8 women) with MHL/CHL were implanted with the Osia® 2 System. Their audiological outcomes were compared with 13 patients (2 men and 11 women) who had previously been implanted with the transcutaneous Baha® Attract system. We compared the complications and compliance of the two groups. Also, in the Osia 2 System group, subjective satisfaction was assessed using the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire.ResultsComplications such as poor magnetization, pain & infection, and abnormal noise were more common in the Baha Attract group, although not statistically significant. Also, the Osia 2 group exhibited better compliance. Subjective satisfaction was assessed using the K-IOI-HA and APHAB questionnaires with the Osia 2 group, revealing significantly improved scores in ease of communication, reverberation, background noise, and higher K-IOI-HA scores post-implantation. Postoperative-aided thresholds with both systems were significantly lower than preoperative-unaided thresholds, with the Osia 2 System demonstrating notably high satisfaction levels. Although both systems showed similar preoperative and postoperative word-recognition scores, the Osia 2 System provided greater audiological gain, especially at 2 kHz and 4 kHz frequencies. Additionally, the functional gain of both systems was comparable across all frequencies.ConclusionsThe Osia 2 System demonstrated high subjective satisfaction and improved audiological outcomes compared to the Baha Attract system in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Its superior audiological gain, particularly at critical frequencies, along with better compliance, suggests it as a favorable option for this patient population.
科利耳™ Osia® 2 系统对混合性或传导性听力损失患者的影响:与科利耳™ Baha® Attract 系统效果的比较
方法在这项前瞻性病例对照研究中,10 名 MHL/CHL 患者(2 名男性和 8 名女性)植入了 Osia® 2 系统。他们的听力结果与之前植入经皮 Baha® Attract 系统的 13 名患者(2 名男性和 11 名女性)进行了比较。我们比较了两组患者的并发症和依从性。此外,在 Osia 2 系统组中,我们还使用韩文版国际助听器结果量表(K-IOI-HA)问卷和助听器效益简表(APHAB)问卷评估了患者的主观满意度。结果Baha Attract 组中磁化不良、疼痛、感染和异常噪音等并发症更为常见,但无统计学意义。此外,Osia 2 组的依从性更好。使用 K-IOI-HA 和 APHAB 问卷对 Osia 2 组的主观满意度进行了评估,结果显示,植入后,Osia 2 组在沟通便利性、混响、背景噪声方面的得分明显提高,K-IOI-HA 得分也更高。两种系统的术后辅助阈值均明显低于术前无辅助阈值,Osia 2 系统的满意度明显较高。虽然两种系统的术前和术后单词识别评分相似,但 Osia 2 系统的听力增益更大,尤其是在 2 kHz 和 4 kHz 频率上。结论与 Baha Att 系统相比,Osia 2 系统对传导性或混合性听力损失患者的主观满意度高,听力效果更好。其卓越的听觉增益(尤其是在临界频率)和更好的顺应性表明,它是这类患者的一个有利选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science Progress
Science Progress Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
119
期刊介绍: Science Progress has for over 100 years been a highly regarded review publication in science, technology and medicine. Its objective is to excite the readers'' interest in areas with which they may not be fully familiar but which could facilitate their interest, or even activity, in a cognate field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信