Department of Otolaryngology, Landesklinikum St. Poelten, Propst Fuehrerstrasse 4, St. Poelten, Austria.
Otol Neurotol. 2010 Apr;31(3):424-9. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181cabd42.
To compare 2 open-ear hearing solutions for sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss: open-fit hearing aid (HA) and active middle ear implant (AMEI).
Within-subjects prospective design.
Tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS AND DEVICES: Fourteen patients with sloping, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss were recruited from 39 patients previously implanted with an AMEI and 10 agreed to participate, ranging in age from 44 to 73 years (mean, 59 yr). Patients were selected because their hearing thresholds (500-3,000 Hz) qualified them for both AMEI and open-fit HA use. All patients received a Vibrant Soundbridge (Vibrant MED-EL) for an average of 25.1 months before data collection and used their AMEI on a daily basis. The open-fit HA used in this study was the Delta 8000 (Oticon). Both study devices have been fit with the specific fitting strategies as recommended by the manufacturer.
Sound-field hearing thresholds, Freiburger monosyllabic words in quiet, speech reception thresholds for 50% correct recognition for Freiburger numbers and for Oldenburg sentences in quiet, and speech reception thresholds for 50% correct recognition for Oldenburg sentences in noise.
Both HA and AMEI conditions showed significantly better sound-field thresholds and speech recognition on monosyllabic word and sentence tests in quiet and in noise than in the unaided condition. A comparison of aided conditions revealed that, in the AMEI-aided condition, high-frequency audibility and speech discrimination scores in quiet and in noise were significantly better than those in the open-fit HA.
Both open-fit HAs and AMEIs provided audiologic benefit to patients with sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. However, despite overlapping indication criteria for the 2 devices, performance with the AMEI was significantly better for the AMEI than for the open-fit HA.
比较两种开放式听力解决方案在陡高频感音神经性听力损失中的应用：开放式助听器（HA）和主动中耳植入物（AMEI）。
受试者内前瞻性设计。
三级转诊医院。
从之前植入 AMEI 的 39 名患者中招募了 14 名患有陡高频感音神经性听力损失的患者，其中 10 名患者同意参与研究，年龄在 44 岁至 73 岁之间（平均 59 岁）。选择这些患者是因为他们的听力阈值（500-3000Hz）符合 AMEI 和开放式 HA 使用的要求。所有患者在数据收集前平均使用 Vibrant Soundbridge（Vibrant MED-EL）25.1 个月，并每天使用 AMEI。本研究中使用的开放式 HA 是 Delta 8000（Oticon）。两种研究设备均采用制造商推荐的特定适配策略进行适配。
声场听力阈值、安静环境下的 Freiburger 单音节词、50%正确识别 Freiburger 数字和 Oldenburg 句子的言语接受阈、安静环境下 50%正确识别 Oldenburg 句子的言语接受阈。
在声场听力阈值和言语识别测试中，无论是单音节词测试还是句子测试，无论是在安静环境还是噪声环境中，HA 和 AMEI 条件均显著优于未助听条件。辅助条件的比较显示，在 AMEI 辅助条件下，高频可听度和在安静和噪声环境中的言语辨别分数明显优于开放式 HA 辅助条件。
开放式 HA 和 AMEI 均可为陡高频感音神经性听力损失患者提供听力学获益。然而，尽管两种设备的适应证标准有重叠，但 AMEI 的性能明显优于开放式 HA。
