Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction of Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge in congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss.

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.14639/0392-100X-N2659

Yujie Liu, Lin Yang, Yuan Wang, Jikai Zhu, Wenxi Qiu, Mengshuang Lv, Danni Wang, Shouqin Zhao

{"title":"Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction of Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge in congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss.","authors":"Yujie Liu, Lin Yang, Yuan Wang, Jikai Zhu, Wenxi Qiu, Mengshuang Lv, Danni Wang, Shouqin Zhao","doi":"10.14639/0392-100X-N2659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels of Bonebridge (BB) and Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL).Methods: The hearing effectiveness was measured using sound field hearing threshold (SFHT) and word recognition score (WRS). Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels were measured by questionnaires, including Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale-12 (SSQ-12) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB).Results: Both BB and VSB were effective in improving the hearing of patients with congenital UCHL. Four of the 20 patients discontinued wearing the device postoperatively, and no complications were reported by long-term users. Patients experienced an overall improvement in their hearing experience across most subscales of SSQ-12 and a lower hearing problem rate across most subscales of the APHAB after implantation. However, the 'quality of hearing' subscale in the SSQ-12 did not show any improvement, and the aversiveness subscale in the APHAB exhibited a relatively higher percentage of reported problems after BB or VSB implantation. No significant differences were observed in SFHT, WRS, SSQ-12, and APHAB between the two groups.Conclusions: Both BB and VSB are effective in improving the hearing of UCHL patients, with high subjective satisfaction and low complication rates in the long-term postoperative period, with no significant difference between the two devices. Follow-up device fitting is essential, especially to address increased device sound or noise after surgery, reduce non-usage rates and achieve higher subjective satisfaction levels.","PeriodicalId":6890,"journal":{"name":"Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica","volume":"44 5","pages":"322-332"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556773/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N2659","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels of Bonebridge (BB) and Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL).

Methods: The hearing effectiveness was measured using sound field hearing threshold (SFHT) and word recognition score (WRS). Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels were measured by questionnaires, including Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale-12 (SSQ-12) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB).

Results: Both BB and VSB were effective in improving the hearing of patients with congenital UCHL. Four of the 20 patients discontinued wearing the device postoperatively, and no complications were reported by long-term users. Patients experienced an overall improvement in their hearing experience across most subscales of SSQ-12 and a lower hearing problem rate across most subscales of the APHAB after implantation. However, the 'quality of hearing' subscale in the SSQ-12 did not show any improvement, and the aversiveness subscale in the APHAB exhibited a relatively higher percentage of reported problems after BB or VSB implantation. No significant differences were observed in SFHT, WRS, SSQ-12, and APHAB between the two groups.

Conclusions: Both BB and VSB are effective in improving the hearing of UCHL patients, with high subjective satisfaction and low complication rates in the long-term postoperative period, with no significant difference between the two devices. Follow-up device fitting is essential, especially to address increased device sound or noise after surgery, reduce non-usage rates and achieve higher subjective satisfaction levels.

查看原文本刊更多论文

Bonebridge 和 Vibrant Soundbridge 治疗先天性单侧传导性听力损失的长期安全性和主观满意度。

目的：本研究旨在评估和比较 Bonebridge（BB）和 Vibrant Soundbridge（VSB）对先天性单侧传导性听力损失（UCHL）患者的长期安全性和主观满意度：方法：使用声场听阈（SFHT）和单词识别分数（WRS）测量听力效果。方法：使用声场听阈（SFHT）和单词识别分数（WRS）测量听力效果，并通过言语、空间和听力质量量表-12（SSQ-12）和助听器效益简表（APHAB）等问卷测量长期安全性和主观满意度：结果：BB和VSB都能有效改善先天性UCHL患者的听力。20 名患者中有 4 人术后不再佩戴助听器，长期使用者未出现并发症。植入设备后，患者的听力体验在 SSQ-12 的大多数分量表中都得到了整体改善，而在 APHAB 的大多数分量表中，听力问题发生率也有所降低。不过，SSQ-12 中的 "听力质量 "分量表没有显示出任何改善，而 APHAB 中的 "厌恶 "分量表显示，植入 BB 或 VSB 后出现问题的比例相对较高。两组患者的 SFHT、WRS、SSQ-12 和 APHAB 均无明显差异：结论：BB 和 VSB 都能有效改善 UCHL 患者的听力，术后长期的主观满意度高，并发症发生率低，两种设备之间无明显差异。设备的后续验配至关重要，尤其是要解决术后设备声音或噪音增大的问题，降低不使用率，提高主观满意度。

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

Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY-

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

10.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica first appeared as “Annali di Laringologia Otologia e Faringologia” and was founded in 1901 by Giulio Masini. It is the official publication of the Italian Hospital Otology Association (A.O.O.I.) and, since 1976, also of the Società Italiana di Otorinolaringoiatria e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale (S.I.O.Ch.C.-F.). The journal publishes original articles (clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional surveys, and diagnostic test assessments) of interest in the field of otorhinolaryngology as well as clinical techniques and technology (a short report of unique or original methods for surgical techniques, medical management or new devices or technology), editorials (including editorial guests – special contribution) and letters to the Editor-in-Chief. Articles concerning science investigations and well prepared systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) on themes related to basic science, clinical otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery have high priority.