Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola · 2020
Single-sided deafness: Bone conduction devices or cochlear implantation? A systematic review with meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Donato Mariana, Santos Ricardo, Correia Filipe, Escada Pedro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of the studies published on the efficacy of bone conduction devices and cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness, through the evaluation of speech discrimination in noise, sound localization and tinnitus suppression. As a secondary outcome, patient satisfaction is also assessed.
DESIGN: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL was conducted, including all articles written in English and published in the last 10 years. The outcomes selected were speech perception in noise, sound localization, tinnitus intensity and, secondarily, quality of life assessment. Studies that met prospectively defined criteria were subjected to random effects meta-analyses. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO with number CRD42019121444.
RESULTS: Nineteen articles reporting a total of 210 patients (95 patients with bone conduction devices and 115 in the cochlear implantation group) were included. The meta-analysis identifies statistically significant benefits in cochlear implantation for sound localization, tinnitus suppression, in global quality of life assessment and in 2 of the 3 subscales of quality of life assessment (ease of communication and reverberation). Bone conduction devices are better regarding speech discrimination in noise and background noise quality of life assessment.
CONCLUSION: Cochlear implants effectively offer better results in 2 of the 3 evaluated parameters, being a very valid option. Bone conduction devices should continue to be considered in the treatment of these patients because, in addition to allowing better discrimination in noise, patient satisfaction is greater in environments with background noise.
DESIGN: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL was conducted, including all articles written in English and published in the last 10 years. The outcomes selected were speech perception in noise, sound localization, tinnitus intensity and, secondarily, quality of life assessment. Studies that met prospectively defined criteria were subjected to random effects meta-analyses. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO with number CRD42019121444.
RESULTS: Nineteen articles reporting a total of 210 patients (95 patients with bone conduction devices and 115 in the cochlear implantation group) were included. The meta-analysis identifies statistically significant benefits in cochlear implantation for sound localization, tinnitus suppression, in global quality of life assessment and in 2 of the 3 subscales of quality of life assessment (ease of communication and reverberation). Bone conduction devices are better regarding speech discrimination in noise and background noise quality of life assessment.
CONCLUSION: Cochlear implants effectively offer better results in 2 of the 3 evaluated parameters, being a very valid option. Bone conduction devices should continue to be considered in the treatment of these patients because, in addition to allowing better discrimination in noise, patient satisfaction is greater in environments with background noise.