Department of Otolaryngology and Laryngological Oncology Collegium Medicum Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Department of Otolaryngology and Laryngological Oncology Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
J Int Adv Otol. 2023 Jul;19(4):288-294. doi: 10.5152/iao.2023.22734.
The semi-implantable bone conduction devices connect the skull to the hearing device by means of an implant. This implant affords us 3 possible methods for conducting bone conduction evaluation, which may produce a different result for the same patient, and comparisons of results from different centers may therefore be interpreted incorrectly. Thus, the authors attempt to quantify the audiometric differences between the obtained auditory results and to check whether the results of standard pure tone audiometry could be replaced with the results obtained by alternative measurement methods.
Measurements were conducted in a group of 53 adult patients implanted with bone conduction devices in 3 modes: bone conduction-direct, when the bone conduction device itself is used to assess the audiometric threshold; bone conduction-pure tone audiometry with audiometric oscillator placed over mastoid aside of an implant; and bone conduction-indirect with oscillator placed on an implant.
The analysis revealed differences between obtained results, which can reach up to 21.48 dB with a mean of 10 dB across all frequencies. The lowest values, regardless of the type of implant connection ("magnetic"; "snap"), were recorded for bone conduction-indirect mode whereas the highest mean all-frequency thresholds were recorded in the mode defined as bone conduction-direct.
The method that provides the most comparable thresholds is when the oscillator is positioned on the mastoid, aside from an implant. It should be the method of choice for any hearing evaluation in patients fitted with bone conduction devices, because of standardized equipment and the availability of preoperative data obtained with the same method.
半植入式骨导装置通过植入物将颅骨与听力装置连接起来。这种植入物为我们提供了 3 种进行骨导评估的可能方法，这可能会导致同一患者的结果不同，因此不同中心的结果比较可能会被错误解释。因此，作者试图量化获得的听觉结果之间的听力差异，并检查标准纯音测听结果是否可以被替代为替代测量方法获得的结果。
在一组 53 名成年患者中进行了测量，这些患者使用 3 种模式植入了骨导装置：骨导-直接，当骨导装置本身用于评估听阈时；骨导-纯音测听振荡器置于植入物旁边的乳突上；骨导-间接，振荡器置于植入物上。
分析显示获得的结果之间存在差异，在所有频率上差异最大可达 21.48dB，平均为 10dB。无论植入物连接类型（“磁性”；“卡扣”）如何，最低值均记录在骨导-间接模式下，而在定义为骨导-直接的模式下记录的所有频率平均阈值最高。
提供最可比阈值的方法是将振荡器放置在乳突上，位于植入物旁边。由于设备标准化以及可以使用相同方法获得术前数据，因此它应该是任何佩戴骨导装置的患者听力评估的首选方法。
