Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2019
A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Skarzynski Piotr H, Ratuszniak Anna, Osinska Kamila, Koziel Magdalena, Krol Bartlomiej, Cywka Katarzyna B, Skarzynski Henryk
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the audiological performance with the novel adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) to that with a passive bone conduction (BC) implant and to that with a bone conduction device (BCD) on a softband.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject repeated measure in three situations: unaided, with conventional BCDs (passive implant or on softband), and with the ADHEAR.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Ten subjects with conductive hearing loss were evaluated with the ADHEAR. Five of these were users of a passive BC implant (Baha Attract with Baha4); five received a BCD (Baha4) on a softband for test purposes.
INTERVENTION: Use of non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Air and bone conduction thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in quiet and noise were assessed.
RESULTS: Users of the passive BC implant received comparable hearing benefit with the ADHEAR. The mean aided thresholds in sound field measurements and speech understanding in quiet and noise were similar, when subjects were evaluated either with the ADHEAR or the passive BC implant. The audiological outcomes for the non-implanted group were also comparable between the ADHEAR and the BCD on softband.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our initial data, the ADHEAR seems to be a suitable alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for medical reasons cannot or do not want to undergo surgery for a passive BC implant.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject repeated measure in three situations: unaided, with conventional BCDs (passive implant or on softband), and with the ADHEAR.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Ten subjects with conductive hearing loss were evaluated with the ADHEAR. Five of these were users of a passive BC implant (Baha Attract with Baha4); five received a BCD (Baha4) on a softband for test purposes.
INTERVENTION: Use of non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Air and bone conduction thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in quiet and noise were assessed.
RESULTS: Users of the passive BC implant received comparable hearing benefit with the ADHEAR. The mean aided thresholds in sound field measurements and speech understanding in quiet and noise were similar, when subjects were evaluated either with the ADHEAR or the passive BC implant. The audiological outcomes for the non-implanted group were also comparable between the ADHEAR and the BCD on softband.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our initial data, the ADHEAR seems to be a suitable alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for medical reasons cannot or do not want to undergo surgery for a passive BC implant.