Dataset Information

Multicenter Results With an Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant in Patients With Single-sided Deafness.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the audiological and subjective benefit from hearing rehabilitation with an active bone conduction implant in subjects with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD).

Study design

Prospective, multicenter, single-subject repeated measures.

Setting

Tertiary referral center, five clinics in Germany and Switzerland.

Patients

Seventeen subjects aged 18 years and older with severe to profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss and contralateral normal hearing were followed up for 24 months.

Intervention

Active bone conduction implant.

Main outcome measures

Speech understanding in noise was assessed in three situations: with signal from front, deaf, or normal hearing side (with noise from front in all set-ups). Subjective benefit was evaluated using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ-B) and Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness (BBSS) questionnaire.

Results

When the signal was coming from the deaf side the mean improvement of the speech reception threshold in noise ranged from 1.5 up to 2.2 dB with the device and was statistically and clinically significant at all tested timepoints. No significant difference between the aided and unaided situation was found when signal and noise were coming from the front. With the signal from the normal hearing side no clinically significant difference, that is, greater than 1 dB between the aided and unaided situation was found. The SSQ-B and BBSS questionnaire showed an overall improvement with no significant difference between time points.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates long-term efficacy and benefit of the device in adults with SSD. Patients reported substantial and persistent subjective benefit from the active bone conduction implant.

SUBMITTER: Huber AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8746904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThis European multicentric study aimed to prove safety and performance of the Bonebridge BCI 602 in children and adults suffering from either conductive hearing loss (CHL), mixed hearing loss (MHL), or single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD).Methods33 patients (13 adults and 10 children with either CHL or MHL and 10 patients with SSD) in three study groups were included. Patients were their own controls (single-subject repeated measures), comparing the unaided or pre-operative to the 3-month post-operative outcomes. Performance was evaluated by sound field thresholds (SF), word recognition scores (WRS) and/or speech reception thresholds in quiet (SRT) and in noise (SNR). Safety was demonstrated with a device-specific surgical questionnaire, adverse event reporting and stable pure-tone measurements.ResultsThe Bonebridge BCI 602 significantly improved SF thresholds (+ 25.5 dB CHL/MHL/SSD), speech intelligibility in WRS (+ 68.0% CHL/MHL) and SRT in quiet (- 16.5 dB C/MHL) and in noise (- 3.51 dB SNR SSD). Air conduction (AC) and bone conduction (BC) thresholds remained stable over time. All adverse events were resolved, with none unanticipated. Mean audio processor wearing times in hours [h] per day for the CHL/MHL group were ~ 13 h for adults, ~ 11 h for paediatrics and ~ 6 h for the SSD group. The average surgical length was 57 min for the CHL/MHL group and 42 min for the SSD group. The versatility of the BCI 602 (reduced drilling depth and ability to bend the transition for optimal placement) allows for treatment of normal, pre-operated and malformed anatomies. All audiological endpoints were reached.ConclusionsThe Bonebridge BCI 602 significantly improved hearing thresholds and speech understanding. Since implant placement follows the patient's anatomy instead of the shape of the device and the duration of surgery is shorter than with its predecessor, implantation is easier with the BCI 602. Performance and safety were proven for adults and children as well as for the CHL/MHL and SSD indications 3 months post-operatively.

Project description:BackgroundIn July 2018 the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant received FDA approval in the US (for patients 12 years and older with conductive and/or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness), reflecting the current trend of moving away from percutaneous hearing solutions towards intact skin systems.ObjectivesTo critically assess the current literature on safety, efficacy and subjective benefit after implantation with an active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device.Data sourcesLiterature investigation was performed by electronic database search including PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and manual search of relevant journals and reference lists of included studies.Study eligibility criteriaRandomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials and cohort studies, case series and case reports investigating subjective and objective outcomes.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsRetrieved literature was screened and extracted by two reviewers independently. Subgroup analysis of indications (conductive and/or mixed hearing loss, single-sided deafness) and participant ages (pediatric vs. adults) was conducted on patients with active transcutaneous bone conduction devices. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of the results in meta-analysis.Results39 citations reporting on pre- and postoperative audiological results, speech performance in quiet and in noise, localization testing as well as subjective outcomes were included in this systematic review. Functional gain as well as word recognition score outcomes could be further investigated via meta-analysis. All outcomes reported and summarized here reflect beneficial audiological performance and high patient satisfaction, accompanied with a low complications rate (minor event incidence rate: 9.9 person-years; major incidence rate: 148.9 person-years) for the indications of conductive and mixed hearing loss as well as in individuals suffering from single-sided deafness for all age groups of subjects who underwent active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device implantation.LimitationsA limiting factor of this systematic review was the Level of Evidence of the reviewed literature, comprising 2a/3a studies (cohort studies and case-control studies). Furthermore, the reporting standards, especially in outcomes such as word recognition scores in quiet and in noise, vary across study cites from various countries, which impedes comparisons. Last but not least, no other comparable other device was retrieved as the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device is the only available at the moment.ConclusionThe device's transcutaneous technology results in a minor event incidence rate of one in 9.9 person-years and a major incidence rate of one in 148.9 person-years. Based on the audiological outcomes, high patient satisfaction as well as the low complication rate, the authors recommend the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device as a safe and effective treatment for patients suffering from hearing loss within the device's indication criteria (conductive and/or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness).

Project description:ObjectivesPatients with single-sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly improve subjective speech communication and QoL in SSD patients. A trial period with these devices can help in making a well-informed choice of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing the choice of treatment made after a BCD and CROS trial period in adult SSD patients.MethodsPatients were randomized in the: "first BCD, then CROS" or "first CROS, then BCD" trial period group. After the BCD on headband and CROS were tested for 6 weeks each, patients choose for BCD, CROS or no treatment. Primary outcome was the distribution of choice of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the association between the choice of treatment and patient characteristics, reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection, device usage during the trial periods, and disease-specific QoL outcomes.ResultsOf 91 patients randomized, 84 completed both trial periods and made their choice of treatment: 25 (30%) BCD, 34 (40%) CROS, and 25 (30%) no treatment. No characteristics were found to be related to choice of treatment. Top three reasons for acceptance or rejection were: device (dis)comfort, sound quality and (dis)advantage of subjective hearing. Average daily device use during the trial periods was higher for CROS than for BCD. Choice of treatment was significantly related with both duration of device usage and greater improvement of QoL after the corresponding trial period.ConclusionThe majority of SSD patients preferred BCD or CROS over no treatment. Evaluating device usage, discussing treatment (dis)advantages and disease-specific QoL outcomes after trial periods are to be considered during patient counseling and could facilitate whether to choose one of these treatments.Level of evidence1B.

Project description:Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localisation, and sometimes tinnitus. Current treatments (Contralateral Routing of Sound hearing aids (CROS) and Bone Conduction Devices (BCD)) do not sufficiently overcome these problems. Cochlear implants (CIs) may help. Our aim was to evaluate these treatments in a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Adult SSD patients were randomised using a web-based randomisation tool into one of three groups: CI; trial period of 'first BCD, then CROS'; trial period of 'first CROS, then BCD'. After these trial periods, patients opted for BCD, CROS, or No treatment. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise (directed from the front (S0N0)). Secondary outcomes were speech perception in noise with speech directed to the poor ear and noise to the better ear (SpeNbe) and vice versa (SbeNpe), sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and disease-specific quality of life (QoL). We described results at baseline (unaided situation) and 3 and 6 months after device activation. 120 patients were randomised. Seven patients did not receive the allocated intervention. The number of patients per group after allocation was: CI (n = 28), BCD (n = 25), CROS (n = 34), and No treatment (n = 26). In S0N0, the CI group performed significantly better when compared to baseline, and when compared to the other groups. In SpeNbe, there was an advantage for all treatment groups compared to baseline. However, in SbeNpe, BCD and CROS groups performed worse compared to baseline, whereas the CI group improved. Only in the CI group sound localisation improved and tinnitus burden decreased. In general, all treatment groups improved on disease-specific QoL compared to baseline. This RCT demonstrates that cochlear implantation for SSD leads to improved speech perception in noise, sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and QoL after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. For most outcome measures, CI outperformed BCD and CROS. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl): NTR4580, CINGLE-trial.

Project description:IntroductionCochlear implantation is a recent approach proposed to treat single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). Several cohort studies showed its effectiveness on tinnitus and variable results on binaural hearing. The main objective of this study is to assess the outcomes of cochlear implantation and other treatment options in SSD/AHL on quality of life.MethodsThis prospective multicenter study was conducted in 7 tertiary university hospitals and included an observational cohort study of SSD/AHL adult patients treated using contralateral routing of the signal (CROS) hearing aids or bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHSs) or who declined all treatments, and a randomized controlled trial in subjects treated by cochlear implantation, after failure of CROS and BAHS trials. In total, 155 subjects with SSD or AHL, with or without associated tinnitus, were enrolled. After 2 consecutive trials with CROS hearing aids and BAHSs on headband, all subjects chose any of the 4 treatment options (abstention, CROS, BAHS, or cochlear implant [CI]). The subjects who opted for a CI were randomized between 2 arms (CI vs. initial observation). Six months after the treatment choice, quality of life was assessed using both generic (EuroQoL-5D, EQ-5D) and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices (Nijmegen Cochlear implant Questionnaire [NCIQ] and Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] for tinnitus severity). Performances for speech-in-noise recognition and localization were measured as secondary outcomes.ResultsCROS was chosen by 75 subjects, while 51 opted for cochlear implantation, 18 for BAHSs, and 11 for abstention. Six months after treatment, both EQ-5D VAS and auditory-specific quality-of-life indices were significantly better in the "CI" arm versus "observation" arm. The mean effect of the CI was particularly significant in subjects with associated severe tinnitus (mean improvement of 20.7 points ± 19.7 on EQ-5D VAS, 20.4 ± 12.4 on NCIQ, and 51.4 ± 35.4 on tinnitus). No significant effect of the CI was found on binaural hearing results. Before/after comparisons showed that the CROS and BAHS also improved significantly NCIQ scores (for CROS: +7.7, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = [4.5; 10.8]; for the BAHS: +14.3, 95% CI = [7.9; 20.7]).ConclusionCochlear implantation leads to significant improvements in quality of life in SSD and AHL patients, particularly in subjects with associated severe tinnitus, who are thereby the best candidates to an extension of CI indications.