Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
Comparative Analysis of Intervention With Hearing Implants.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Sassi Tyuana Sandim da Silveira, Brito Neto Rubens Vuono de, Chaves Juliana Nogueira, Bucuvic Érika Cristina, de Oliveira Valdéia Vieira, Castiquini Eliane Aparecida Techi, Lourençone Luiz Fernando Manzoni
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Hearing rehabilitation aims to enhance or restore auditory perception, which is critical for oral language development and to mitigate the cognitive and psychosocial impacts of hearing loss. Although air-conduction hearing aids represent the standard approach, they may be unsuitable for conductive or mixed hearing loss, particularly in cases of ear malformations or chronic otitis media. In such cases, bone-conduction implants, available since the 1980s, offer an alternative by bypassing the outer and middle ear. These implants, passive or active transcutaneous, percutaneous, and middle ear, differ in surgical approach, coupling to the sound processor, and sound-transmission mechanisms.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the audiological performance and speech recognition in individuals with conductive and mixed hearing loss implanted with different hearing implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, comparative longitudinal study analyzed audiological outcomes in 101 individuals implanted with 5 implant types. Free-field pure-tone audiometry and speech recognition were analyzed unaided, at activation, and at 3-month follow-up.
RESULTS: All implants yielded improvements compared with the unaided condition. Aided free-field thresholds showed mean gains of 15.59 to 39.41 dB at activation and 20.00 to 39.71 dB at follow-up. Speech recognition also improved, with mean gains in silence of 19.95 to 31.99 dB at activation and 25.07 to 35.15 dB at follow-up, and in noise of 1.97 to 6.95 dB at activation and 2.16 to 7.56 dB at follow-up. Additional advantages were observed for Baha-p and Ponto.
CONCLUSIONS: All implants provided benefits in audibility and speech perception. However, percutaneous implants, Baha-p and Ponto, offered superior overall performance compared with other implants.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the audiological performance and speech recognition in individuals with conductive and mixed hearing loss implanted with different hearing implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, comparative longitudinal study analyzed audiological outcomes in 101 individuals implanted with 5 implant types. Free-field pure-tone audiometry and speech recognition were analyzed unaided, at activation, and at 3-month follow-up.
RESULTS: All implants yielded improvements compared with the unaided condition. Aided free-field thresholds showed mean gains of 15.59 to 39.41 dB at activation and 20.00 to 39.71 dB at follow-up. Speech recognition also improved, with mean gains in silence of 19.95 to 31.99 dB at activation and 25.07 to 35.15 dB at follow-up, and in noise of 1.97 to 6.95 dB at activation and 2.16 to 7.56 dB at follow-up. Additional advantages were observed for Baha-p and Ponto.
CONCLUSIONS: All implants provided benefits in audibility and speech perception. However, percutaneous implants, Baha-p and Ponto, offered superior overall performance compared with other implants.