Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
Hearing Outcomes of a New Cartilage Conduction Device vs Bone Conduction Devices.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Nairn Emily M, Chen Alyssa S, Nishimura Tadashi, Berezovsky Anna, Stucken Emily Z
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare audiometric outcomes of a new cartilage conduction hearing device (CCD) with traditional bone conduction hearing devices (BCDs).
STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial and crossover study design.
SETTING: Tertiary academic center.
METHODS: Sixteen adults (19 ears) with congenital aural atresia or overclosed ear canals who previously underwent BCD implantation were fitted with a CCD. Audiometric data were collected with use of the BCD and the CCD.
RESULTS: The mean pretreatment 4-frequency pure tone average was 81 dB. The mean aided pure tone averages with the BCD and CCD were 27 and 32 dB (P = .002), and the mean functional gains were 54 and 49 dB (P = .002), respectively. The mean consonant-nucleus-consonant scores with the BCD were 90% (best aided) and 80% (aided ear isolated), and those with the CCD were 86% and 76%. Mean AzBio scores were 90% (quiet), 77% (+10 dB SNR [signal to noise ratio]), and 52% (+5 dB SNR) when isolating the BCD ear and 90%, 73%, and 41% when isolating the CCD ear. No difference in speech scores achieved statistical significance except the AzBio isolated to the aided ear in the +5-dB SNR condition, which favored the BCD (P = .01).
CONCLUSION: Pure tone audiometric outcomes with the BCD show a small advantage over the CCD, with the difference driven mainly by high-frequency responses. Speech outcomes were equivalent apart from the +5-db SNR condition, which favored the BCD.
STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial and crossover study design.
SETTING: Tertiary academic center.
METHODS: Sixteen adults (19 ears) with congenital aural atresia or overclosed ear canals who previously underwent BCD implantation were fitted with a CCD. Audiometric data were collected with use of the BCD and the CCD.
RESULTS: The mean pretreatment 4-frequency pure tone average was 81 dB. The mean aided pure tone averages with the BCD and CCD were 27 and 32 dB (P = .002), and the mean functional gains were 54 and 49 dB (P = .002), respectively. The mean consonant-nucleus-consonant scores with the BCD were 90% (best aided) and 80% (aided ear isolated), and those with the CCD were 86% and 76%. Mean AzBio scores were 90% (quiet), 77% (+10 dB SNR [signal to noise ratio]), and 52% (+5 dB SNR) when isolating the BCD ear and 90%, 73%, and 41% when isolating the CCD ear. No difference in speech scores achieved statistical significance except the AzBio isolated to the aided ear in the +5-dB SNR condition, which favored the BCD (P = .01).
CONCLUSION: Pure tone audiometric outcomes with the BCD show a small advantage over the CCD, with the difference driven mainly by high-frequency responses. Speech outcomes were equivalent apart from the +5-db SNR condition, which favored the BCD.