Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), University of Hamburg, Germany.
Trends Hear. 2016 Oct 3;20:2331216516669330. doi: 10.1177/2331216516669330.
Semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction devices are treatment options for conductive and mixed hearing loss (CHL/MHL). For counseling of patients, realistic simulation of the functional result is desirable. This study compared speech recognition in noise with a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device to external stimulation with a bone conduction device fixed by a headband. Eight German-language adult patients were enrolled after a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device (Bonebridge, Med-El) was implanted and fitted. Patients received a bone conduction device for external stimulation (Baha BP110, Cochlear) fixed by a headband for comparison. The main outcome measure was speech recognition in noise (Oldenburg Sentence Test). Pure-tone audiometry was performed and subjective benefit was assessed using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaires. Unaided, patients showed a mean signal-to-noise ratio threshold of 4.6 ± 4.2 dB S/N for speech recognition. The aided results were -3.3 ± 7.2 dB S/N by external bone conduction stimulation and -1.2 ± 4.0 dB S/N by the semi-implantable bone conduction device. The difference between the two devices was not statistically significant, while the difference was significant between unaided and aided situation for both devices. Both questionnaires for subjective benefit favored the semi-implantable device over external stimulation. We conclude that it is possible to simulate the result of speech recognition in noise with a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device by external stimulation. This should be part of preoperative counseling of patients with CHL/MHL before implantation of a bone conduction device.
半植入式经皮骨导装置是传导性和混合性听力损失（CHL/MHL）的治疗选择。为了对患者进行咨询，理想情况下需要对功能结果进行真实模拟。本研究比较了半植入式经皮骨导装置与通过头带固定的骨导装置进行外部刺激的噪声下言语识别。在植入和适配半植入式经皮骨导装置（Bonebridge，Med-El）后，招募了 8 名德语成年患者。患者接受了通过头带固定的外部刺激骨导装置（Baha BP110，Cochlear）进行比较。主要观察指标为噪声下言语识别（奥登堡句子测试）。进行纯音测听，并使用格拉斯哥受益量表和简化助听器受益问卷评估主观受益。在未助听的情况下，患者的言语识别平均信噪比阈值为 4.6±4.2dB S/N。通过外部骨导刺激的辅助结果为-3.3±7.2dB S/N，通过半植入式骨导装置的辅助结果为-1.2±4.0dB S/N。两种装置之间的差异无统计学意义，而两种装置在未助听和助听情况下的差异均有统计学意义。两种主观受益问卷均倾向于半植入式装置优于外部刺激。我们得出结论，通过外部刺激可以模拟半植入式经皮骨导装置在噪声下言语识别的结果。这应该是在植入骨导装置之前对 CHL/MHL 患者进行术前咨询的一部分。
