The Laryngoscope · 2016
Benefits of active middle ear implants in mixed hearing loss: Stapes versus round window.
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.
Lee Jeon Mi, Jung Jinsei, Moon In Seok, Kim Sung Huhn, Choi Jae Young
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: We compared the audiologic benefits of active middle ear implants with those of passive middle ear implants with hearing aids in mixed hearing loss, and also compared the outcomes of stapes vibroplasty with those of round window vibroplasty.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients with mixed hearing loss due to chronic otitis media were treated with a middle ear implant. Of these, 15 were treated with a passive middle ear implant (conventional ossiculoplasty with a partial ossicular replacement prosthesis), nine with an active middle ear implant coupling to the stapes, and 10 with an active middle ear implant coupling to the round window. Patients underwent pure-tone/free-field audiograms and speech discrimination tests before surgery and 6 months after surgery, and the results of these tests were compared.
RESULTS: The active middle ear implant resulted in better outcomes than the passive middle ear implant with hearing aids at mid to high frequencies (P < .05). Patients who received either a stapes vibroplasty or a round window vibroplasty showed comparable hearing gain except at 8,000 Hz (48.9 dB vs. 31.0 dB, P < .05). Patients who received a stapes vibroplasty showed an improvement even in bone conduction at 1,000 Hz and 2,000 Hz (both P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Active middle ear implantation could be a better option than treatment with passive middle ear implants with hearing aids for achieving rehabilitation in patients with mixed hearing loss. Vibroplasty via either oval window or round window stimulation shares similar good results.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 127:1435-1441, 2017.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients with mixed hearing loss due to chronic otitis media were treated with a middle ear implant. Of these, 15 were treated with a passive middle ear implant (conventional ossiculoplasty with a partial ossicular replacement prosthesis), nine with an active middle ear implant coupling to the stapes, and 10 with an active middle ear implant coupling to the round window. Patients underwent pure-tone/free-field audiograms and speech discrimination tests before surgery and 6 months after surgery, and the results of these tests were compared.
RESULTS: The active middle ear implant resulted in better outcomes than the passive middle ear implant with hearing aids at mid to high frequencies (P < .05). Patients who received either a stapes vibroplasty or a round window vibroplasty showed comparable hearing gain except at 8,000 Hz (48.9 dB vs. 31.0 dB, P < .05). Patients who received a stapes vibroplasty showed an improvement even in bone conduction at 1,000 Hz and 2,000 Hz (both P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Active middle ear implantation could be a better option than treatment with passive middle ear implants with hearing aids for achieving rehabilitation in patients with mixed hearing loss. Vibroplasty via either oval window or round window stimulation shares similar good results.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 127:1435-1441, 2017.