Decision making in bone conduction and active middle ear implants - hearing outcomes and experiences over a 10-year period.

IF 1.4 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1080/14670100.2023.2267900

Dayse Távora-Vieira, Roberta Marino, Jafri Kuthubutheen, Christopher Broadbent, Aanand Acharya

{"title":"Decision making in bone conduction and active middle ear implants - hearing outcomes and experiences over a 10-year period.","authors":"Dayse Távora-Vieira, Roberta Marino, Jafri Kuthubutheen, Christopher Broadbent, Aanand Acharya","doi":"10.1080/14670100.2023.2267900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To review the decision-making paradigm in the recommendations of BCI and aMEI overlapping candidacy for patients with conductive or mixed HL, and to determine if there are differences in hearing and quality of life outcomes between these implantable hearing devices.Methods: Retrospective data from patients receiving BCI or aMEI in the past decade were analysed. Patients were grouped into: 1. BCI candidates, 2. BCI or aMEI candidates, and 3. aMEI candidates. We compared outcomes and examined the impact of BC threshold, age at implantation, and duration of hearing loss on candidacy.Results: 89 participants were included: 30 BCI, 37 aMEI, and 22 BCI or aMEI candidates. All groups performed similarly in aided sound field threshold testing. BCI group had lower speech scores in quiet compared to 'BCI or aMEI.' No significant differences were found in APHAB global scores. BC threshold, duration of hearing loss, and age at implantation had no significant effects.Discussion: Outcomes were generally similar across groups, except for higher effective gain in the aMEI group.Conclusion: Our proposed patient pathway and decision-making approach facilitate candidate selection for aMEI and BCI, aiming to optimise outcomes.","PeriodicalId":53553,"journal":{"name":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","volume":" ","pages":"16-22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2023.2267900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To review the decision-making paradigm in the recommendations of BCI and aMEI overlapping candidacy for patients with conductive or mixed HL, and to determine if there are differences in hearing and quality of life outcomes between these implantable hearing devices.

Methods: Retrospective data from patients receiving BCI or aMEI in the past decade were analysed. Patients were grouped into: 1. BCI candidates, 2. BCI or aMEI candidates, and 3. aMEI candidates. We compared outcomes and examined the impact of BC threshold, age at implantation, and duration of hearing loss on candidacy.

Results: 89 participants were included: 30 BCI, 37 aMEI, and 22 BCI or aMEI candidates. All groups performed similarly in aided sound field threshold testing. BCI group had lower speech scores in quiet compared to 'BCI or aMEI.' No significant differences were found in APHAB global scores. BC threshold, duration of hearing loss, and age at implantation had no significant effects.

Discussion: Outcomes were generally similar across groups, except for higher effective gain in the aMEI group.

Conclusion: Our proposed patient pathway and decision-making approach facilitate candidate selection for aMEI and BCI, aiming to optimise outcomes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

骨传导和主动中耳植入的决策——10年来的听力结果和经验。

目的：回顾脑机接口和aMEI推荐的传导性或混合性HL患者重叠候选的决策模式，并确定这些植入式听力设备之间在听力和生活质量方面是否存在差异。方法：回顾性分析过去十年接受脑机接口或aMEI治疗的患者的数据。患者分为：1。脑机接口候选者，2。BCI或aMEI候选者，以及3。aMEI候选人。我们比较了结果，并检查了BC阈值、植入年龄和听力损失持续时间对候选的影响。结果：89名参与者包括：30名脑机接口、37名aMEI和22名脑机或aMEI候选人。所有组在辅助声场阈值测试中表现相似。与“脑机接口或aMEI”相比，脑机接口组在安静状态下的言语得分较低APHAB的总体得分没有发现显著差异。BC阈值、听力损失持续时间和植入时的年龄没有显著影响。讨论：除了aMEI组的有效增益较高外，各组的结果基本相似。结论：我们提出的患者路径和决策方法有助于aMEI和脑机接口的候选选择，旨在优化结果。

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

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Cochlear Implants International was founded as an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal in response to the growing number of publications in the field of cochlear implants. It was designed to meet a need to include scientific contributions from all the disciplines that are represented in cochlear implant teams: audiology, medicine and surgery, speech therapy and speech pathology, psychology, hearing therapy, radiology, pathology, engineering and acoustics, teaching, and communication. The aim was to found a truly interdisciplinary journal, representing the full breadth of the field of cochlear implantation.