应用主动骨传导种植体后的结果

Eleonor Koro, Mimmi Werner
{"title":"应用主动骨传导种植体后的结果","authors":"Eleonor Koro, Mimmi Werner","doi":"10.1159/000502052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A bone conducting implant is a treatment option for individuals with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL, MHL) who do not tolerate regular hearing aids, and for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). An active bone conducting implant (ABCI) was introduced in 2012 with indication in CHL, MHL, and SSD, and it is still the only ABCI available. With complete implantation of the active transducer and consequent intact skin, a decrease in infections, skin overgrowth, and implant losses, all common disadvantages with earlier passive bone conducting implants, could be expected. Our Ear, Nose and Throat Department, a secondary care center for otosurgery that covers a population of approximately 365,000 inhabitants, was approved to implant ABCIs in 2012. Objectives: Our aim was to conduct an evaluation of audiological and subjective outcomes after ABCIs. Method: A cohort study with retrospective and prospective data collection was performed.The first 20 consecutive patients operated with an ABCI were asked for informed consent. The main outcome measures werepure tone and speech audiometry and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). Results: Seventeen patients accepted to participate and 15 were able to complete all parts. Six patients had CHL or MHL. In this group the pure tone audiometry tests are comparable with an average functional hearing gain of 29.8 dB HL. With bilateral hearing, the mean Word Recognition Score (WRS) in noise was 35.7% unaided and 62.7% aided. Ten patients had the indication SSD. With the hearing ear blocked, the pure tone average was >101 dB HL, compared to 29.3 dB HL in sound field aided. With bilateral hearing, the mean WRS in noise was 59.7% unaided and 72.8% aided. The mean of the total GBI score was 42.1 in the group with CHL or MHL and 20.6 in the group with SSD. Conclusions: The patients benefit from their implants in terms of quality of life, and there is a substantial hearing gain from the implant for patients with conductive or MHL. Patients with SSD benefit less from the implant than other diagnoses but the positive outcomes are comparable to other options for this group.","PeriodicalId":8624,"journal":{"name":"Audiology and Neurotology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes after Application of Active Bone Conducting Implants\",\"authors\":\"Eleonor Koro, Mimmi Werner\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000502052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: A bone conducting implant is a treatment option for individuals with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL, MHL) who do not tolerate regular hearing aids, and for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). An active bone conducting implant (ABCI) was introduced in 2012 with indication in CHL, MHL, and SSD, and it is still the only ABCI available. With complete implantation of the active transducer and consequent intact skin, a decrease in infections, skin overgrowth, and implant losses, all common disadvantages with earlier passive bone conducting implants, could be expected. Our Ear, Nose and Throat Department, a secondary care center for otosurgery that covers a population of approximately 365,000 inhabitants, was approved to implant ABCIs in 2012. Objectives: Our aim was to conduct an evaluation of audiological and subjective outcomes after ABCIs. Method: A cohort study with retrospective and prospective data collection was performed.The first 20 consecutive patients operated with an ABCI were asked for informed consent. The main outcome measures werepure tone and speech audiometry and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). Results: Seventeen patients accepted to participate and 15 were able to complete all parts. Six patients had CHL or MHL. In this group the pure tone audiometry tests are comparable with an average functional hearing gain of 29.8 dB HL. With bilateral hearing, the mean Word Recognition Score (WRS) in noise was 35.7% unaided and 62.7% aided. Ten patients had the indication SSD. With the hearing ear blocked, the pure tone average was >101 dB HL, compared to 29.3 dB HL in sound field aided. With bilateral hearing, the mean WRS in noise was 59.7% unaided and 72.8% aided. The mean of the total GBI score was 42.1 in the group with CHL or MHL and 20.6 in the group with SSD. Conclusions: The patients benefit from their implants in terms of quality of life, and there is a substantial hearing gain from the implant for patients with conductive or MHL. Patients with SSD benefit less from the implant than other diagnoses but the positive outcomes are comparable to other options for this group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Audiology and Neurotology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Audiology and Neurotology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000502052\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Audiology and Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000502052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:骨传导种植体是不能耐受常规助听器的传导性或混合性听力损失(CHL, MHL)和单侧耳聋(SSD)患者的治疗选择。2012年引入了一种主动骨传导植入物(ABCI),适应症为CHL、MHL和SSD,它仍然是唯一可用的ABCI。随着主动换能器的完全植入和随之而来的完整皮肤,感染、皮肤过度生长和植入物丢失的减少,这些都是早期被动骨传导植入物的常见缺点,是可以预期的。我们的耳鼻喉科是耳外科的二级护理中心,覆盖了大约36.5万居民,于2012年被批准植入abci。目的:我们的目的是对abci后的听力学和主观结果进行评估。方法:采用回顾性和前瞻性资料收集的队列研究。前20名连续接受ABCI手术的患者被要求知情同意。主要结果测量是纯音和语音听力学以及格拉斯哥受益量表(GBI)。结果:17例患者接受参与,15例患者能够完成所有部分。6例患者有CHL或MHL。在这一组中,纯音测听测试与29.8 dB HL的平均功能性听力增益相当。双侧听力组在无辅助和辅助情况下的平均单词识别分数(WRS)分别为35.7%和62.7%。10例患者有适应症SSD。听力封闭时,纯音平均值>101 dB HL,声场辅助时为29.3 dB HL。在双侧听力组,无辅助和辅助的平均WRS分别为59.7%和72.8%。CHL或MHL组GBI总分的平均值为42.1,SSD组为20.6。结论:患者在生活质量方面受益于种植体,对于传导性或MHL患者,种植体可显著提高听力。与其他诊断相比,SSD患者从植入物中获益较少,但该组的积极结果与其他选择相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes after Application of Active Bone Conducting Implants
Background: A bone conducting implant is a treatment option for individuals with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL, MHL) who do not tolerate regular hearing aids, and for individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). An active bone conducting implant (ABCI) was introduced in 2012 with indication in CHL, MHL, and SSD, and it is still the only ABCI available. With complete implantation of the active transducer and consequent intact skin, a decrease in infections, skin overgrowth, and implant losses, all common disadvantages with earlier passive bone conducting implants, could be expected. Our Ear, Nose and Throat Department, a secondary care center for otosurgery that covers a population of approximately 365,000 inhabitants, was approved to implant ABCIs in 2012. Objectives: Our aim was to conduct an evaluation of audiological and subjective outcomes after ABCIs. Method: A cohort study with retrospective and prospective data collection was performed.The first 20 consecutive patients operated with an ABCI were asked for informed consent. The main outcome measures werepure tone and speech audiometry and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). Results: Seventeen patients accepted to participate and 15 were able to complete all parts. Six patients had CHL or MHL. In this group the pure tone audiometry tests are comparable with an average functional hearing gain of 29.8 dB HL. With bilateral hearing, the mean Word Recognition Score (WRS) in noise was 35.7% unaided and 62.7% aided. Ten patients had the indication SSD. With the hearing ear blocked, the pure tone average was >101 dB HL, compared to 29.3 dB HL in sound field aided. With bilateral hearing, the mean WRS in noise was 59.7% unaided and 72.8% aided. The mean of the total GBI score was 42.1 in the group with CHL or MHL and 20.6 in the group with SSD. Conclusions: The patients benefit from their implants in terms of quality of life, and there is a substantial hearing gain from the implant for patients with conductive or MHL. Patients with SSD benefit less from the implant than other diagnoses but the positive outcomes are comparable to other options for this group.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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