Cochlear implants international · 2023
Decision making in bone conduction and active middle ear implants - hearing outcomes and experiences over a 10-year period.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Távora-Vieira Dayse, Marino Roberta, Kuthubutheen Jafri, Broadbent Christopher, Acharya Aanand
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To review the decision-making paradigm in the recommendations of BCI and aMEI overlapping candidacy for patients with conductive or mixed HL, and to determine if there are differences in hearing and quality of life outcomes between these implantable hearing devices.
METHODS: Retrospective data from patients receiving BCI or aMEI in the past decade were analysed. Patients were grouped into: 1. BCI candidates, 2. BCI or aMEI candidates, and 3. aMEI candidates. We compared outcomes and examined the impact of BC threshold, age at implantation, and duration of hearing loss on candidacy.
RESULTS: 89 participants were included: 30 BCI, 37 aMEI, and 22 BCI or aMEI candidates. All groups performed similarly in aided sound field threshold testing. BCI group had lower speech scores in quiet compared to 'BCI or aMEI.' No significant differences were found in APHAB global scores. BC threshold, duration of hearing loss, and age at implantation had no significant effects.
DISCUSSION: Outcomes were generally similar across groups, except for higher effective gain in the aMEI group.
CONCLUSION: Our proposed patient pathway and decision-making approach facilitate candidate selection for aMEI and BCI, aiming to optimise outcomes.
METHODS: Retrospective data from patients receiving BCI or aMEI in the past decade were analysed. Patients were grouped into: 1. BCI candidates, 2. BCI or aMEI candidates, and 3. aMEI candidates. We compared outcomes and examined the impact of BC threshold, age at implantation, and duration of hearing loss on candidacy.
RESULTS: 89 participants were included: 30 BCI, 37 aMEI, and 22 BCI or aMEI candidates. All groups performed similarly in aided sound field threshold testing. BCI group had lower speech scores in quiet compared to 'BCI or aMEI.' No significant differences were found in APHAB global scores. BC threshold, duration of hearing loss, and age at implantation had no significant effects.
DISCUSSION: Outcomes were generally similar across groups, except for higher effective gain in the aMEI group.
CONCLUSION: Our proposed patient pathway and decision-making approach facilitate candidate selection for aMEI and BCI, aiming to optimise outcomes.