Busch Susan, Lenarz Thomas, Maier Hannes
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all," Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(6):347-355. doi: 10.1159/000453354. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
The active middle ear implant Vibrant Soundbridge© provides a variety of coupling modalities of the floating mass transducer (FMT) to various structures of the ossicular chain and the round window. A retrospective analysis was performed on 125 subjects (n = 137 ears) (1) to compare the efficacy of the different FMT coupling modalities with increasing degree of hearing loss, (2) to compare the performance in speech outcome and the effective gain between the coupling types, and (3) to evaluate the risk of additional hearing loss of each coupling procedure. The patients were grouped according to their type of FMT coupling into incus vibroplasty (incus group, n = 59), round window vibroplasty with coupler (RWC group, n = 23), round window vibroplasty without coupler (RW group, n = 22), and oval window vibroplasty with coupler (OWC group, n = 33). For each coupling group, pre- and postoperative thresholds, the results of the Freiburg monosyllable test at 65 dB SPL, and the effective gain across frequencies (0.5-6 kHz) were evaluated. A logistic regression function was used to describe the relationship between word recognition scores (WRS, in % correct) and the mean bone conduction (BC) hearing loss. The surgical procedure had no clinically relevant effect on BC thresholds of patients in each coupling group. The BC pure tone average (PTA4) for 50% WRS predicted by the model function was similar for the incus (48.2 dB nHL), RW (47.8 dB nHL), and OWC (49.0 dB nHL) groups, but higher for the RWC group (67.9 dB nHL). However, the median WRS was 80% or better with no significant differences in speech perception between coupling types (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.229). The effective gain shows an advantage for the incus coupling between 0.5 and 2 kHz over the other coupling types. The performance of the FMT coupling modalities is equally good for patients with a mild-to-moderate hearing loss, but the efficacy of coupling types differs for patients with greater hearing loss (>48 dB BC HL).
有源中耳植入物Vibrant Soundbridge©为浮动质量传感器(FMT)与听骨链和圆窗的各种结构提供了多种耦合方式。对125名受试者(n = 137耳)进行了回顾性分析,(1)比较不同FMT耦合方式在听力损失程度增加时的疗效,(2)比较耦合类型之间的言语结果表现和有效增益,(3)评估每种耦合手术导致额外听力损失的风险。患者根据FMT耦合类型分为砧骨振动成形术组(砧骨组,n = 59)、带耦合器的圆窗振动成形术组(RWC组,n = 23)、不带耦合器的圆窗振动成形术组(RW组,n = 22)和带耦合器的卵圆窗振动成形术组(OWC组,n = 33)。对每个耦合组,评估术前和术后阈值、65 dB SPL下的弗莱堡单音节测试结果以及各频率(0.5 - 6 kHz)的有效增益。使用逻辑回归函数描述单词识别分数(WRS,正确百分比)与平均骨传导(BC)听力损失之间的关系。手术操作对每个耦合组患者的BC阈值无临床相关影响。模型函数预测的50% WRS对应的BC纯音平均值(PTA4)在砧骨组(48.2 dB nHL)、RW组(47.8 dB nHL)和OWC组(49.0 dB nHL)相似,但RWC组更高(67.9 dB nHL)。然而,WRS中位数为80%或更高,耦合类型之间的言语感知无显著差异(Kruskal - Wallis检验,p = 0.229)。在0.5至2 kHz之间,砧骨耦合的有效增益相对于其他耦合类型具有优势。对于轻度至中度听力损失的患者,FMT耦合方式的表现同样良好,但对于听力损失较大(>48 dB BC HL)的患者,耦合类型的疗效有所不同。