Powell Harry R F, Rolfe Alison M, Birman Catherine S
*Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, United Kingdom †Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney ‡Sydney Children's Hospital Network (Children's Hospital at Westmead) §The Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre, Sydney, Australia.
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Sep;36(9):1525-31. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000842.
In 1977, Tjellstrom et al. used the concept of osseointegration and implanted patients with a titanium screw as part of the first bone-anchored hearing solution. Despite good hearing outcomes with the percutaneous device, there has been a drive for the development of transcutaneous bone conduction systems because of soft tissue complications, aesthetics, and loss or failure of the abutment. This study compares audiologic and quality of life questionnaire outcomes (author-designed questionnaire) for two transcutaneous bone conduction implants.
Cross-sectional cohort study.
Tertiary referral hospital and national audiology service.
Twelve patients, 10 children and two adults. Six recipients of each device.
Pure-tone audiometry, aided thresholds, speech discrimination scores, and quality of life questionnaire results.
The unaided four-frequency average air conduction for affected ears was 60.8 dB HL for the Attract group and 57.8 dBHL for the Sophono group; these improved to mean aided thresholds of 30.6 dB HL and 29.8 dB HL, respectively. Therewas no statistical difference between the speech discrimination scores for the two devices in quiet at 55 dB SPL (p = 0.33) orin noise (p = 0.87).
Both systems provide audiologic benefit compared with the unaided situation. Comparing small numbers of patients, there was no significant difference in aided thresholds or speech discrimination scores between these two transcutaneous bone-anchored implants. All Attract and Sophono users reported improvement in quality of life and would recommend their device to others in a similar situation.
1977年，耶尔斯特伦等人运用骨整合概念，为患者植入钛螺钉，这是首个骨锚式听力解决方案的一部分。尽管经皮装置听力效果良好，但由于软组织并发症、美观问题以及基台丢失或失效，人们一直在推动经皮骨传导系统的研发。本研究比较了两种经皮骨传导植入物的听力和生活质量问卷结果（作者设计的问卷）。
横断面队列研究。
三级转诊医院和国家听力服务机构。
12名患者，10名儿童和2名成人。每种装置各有6名接受者。
纯音听力测定、助听阈值、言语辨别得分和生活质量问卷结果。
Attract组患耳的未助听四频率平均气导为60.8dB HL，Sophono组为57.8dB HL；助听后平均阈值分别改善至30.6dB HL和29.8dB HL。两种装置在55dB SPL安静环境下（p = 0.33）或噪声环境下（p = 0.87）的言语辨别得分无统计学差异。
与未助听情况相比，两种系统均能带来听力益处。在比较少数患者时，这两种经皮骨锚式植入物在助听阈值或言语辨别得分方面无显著差异。所有Attract和Sophono使用者均报告生活质量有所改善，并会向处于类似情况的其他人推荐他们使用的装置。
