Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2021
Active Middle Ear Implant Patient Outcomes With Adaptive Feedback Canceller.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Peixoto Maria Conceição, Pratas Rui, Miranda Cristina, Bento Mafalda, Oliveira Susana, Correia da Silva Victor
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the audiological patient performance with an upgrade of the firmware from the fixed feedback canceller (FFC) to the adaptive feedback canceller (AFC) on an active middle ear implant.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational nonrandomized group study.
SETTING: Private hospital.
PATIENTS/INTERVENTIONS: From March 2018 to September 2019, 15 patients implanted with an active middle ear implant, with 6 or more months of experience with a FFC system, were upgraded to an AFC algorithm.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional gain, speech perception in silence and in noise, and sound localization capacities were examined. Feedback reduction was also analyzed.
RESULTS: Thirteen patients were analyzed. Pure tone audiometric evaluation with FFC (mean value of 48.02 dB) compared with AFC at 1 (mean value of 49.12 dB) and 6 months (mean value of 42.75 dB) revealed no statistically significant differences (p = 0.889 and p = 0.358 respectively).In speech discrimination in silence, clinically relevant improvements were observed with AFC at 1 and 6 months, with a mean value of 41.5 and 38.3 dB, respectively (p = 0.03 and p = 0.021 correspondingly). In speech discrimination in noisy environments, we observed an improvement of the different conditions tested. No differences were found in localization capacities between FFC and AFC at the two different moments of evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: AFC is more effective than FFC in cancelling feedback and improving sound quality, allowing for better speech understanding in silence and in noise.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational nonrandomized group study.
SETTING: Private hospital.
PATIENTS/INTERVENTIONS: From March 2018 to September 2019, 15 patients implanted with an active middle ear implant, with 6 or more months of experience with a FFC system, were upgraded to an AFC algorithm.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional gain, speech perception in silence and in noise, and sound localization capacities were examined. Feedback reduction was also analyzed.
RESULTS: Thirteen patients were analyzed. Pure tone audiometric evaluation with FFC (mean value of 48.02 dB) compared with AFC at 1 (mean value of 49.12 dB) and 6 months (mean value of 42.75 dB) revealed no statistically significant differences (p = 0.889 and p = 0.358 respectively).In speech discrimination in silence, clinically relevant improvements were observed with AFC at 1 and 6 months, with a mean value of 41.5 and 38.3 dB, respectively (p = 0.03 and p = 0.021 correspondingly). In speech discrimination in noisy environments, we observed an improvement of the different conditions tested. No differences were found in localization capacities between FFC and AFC at the two different moments of evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: AFC is more effective than FFC in cancelling feedback and improving sound quality, allowing for better speech understanding in silence and in noise.