Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study of the audiological outcomes with Retro-X (semi-implantable hearing aid system) and conventional open fitting hearing aids

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the results of hearing augmentation with the Retro-X semi-implantable hearing aid to a conventional non-implantable open canal hearing aid using the same software technology (Titan-X, auric Hearing Systems, HiKaNo.:13.20.03.0047). Nineteen subjects (20 ears) with mild to moderate high-frequency sensory-neural hearing loss were included in this clinical study. All the subjects were first fitted with a conventional open canal hearing aid (Titan-X). After a period of 4–6 weeks audiological evaluations were performed using standardized speech tests in quiet and noise. Subjective evaluation was performed with the help of standardized questionnaires. After this phase the patients received the semi-implantable Retro-X device under local anaesthesia and 4 weeks later were fitted with a hearing module with the same software technology as the conventional Titan-X hearing aid. Four weeks following the first fitting the same audiological evaluations were performed under similar conditions and the patients were evaluated again using the same questionnaires in order to compare the results of the Retro-X semi-implantable system with the conventional open canal hearing aid. Audiological evaluations revealed better results with the semi-implantable Retro-X in the adaptive speech in noise test; however, the results of the monosyllabic word test in quiet were similar for the Retro-X and conventional open canal hearing aid. The patients subjectively preferred the improved wearing comfort of the semi-implantable device. The Retro-X semi-implantable hearing aid provides better speech perception in noise and higher wearing comfort in comparison to the conventional open canal hearing aids. Considering the simple implantation procedure under local anaesthesia with low complication rate, Retro-X is an alternative to the conventional open canal hearing aids in patients with mild to moderate high frequency sensory-neural hearing loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barbara M, Bandiera G, Serra B, Marrone V, Tarentini S, Pinna JC, Ronchetti F, Graziadio M, Monini S (2005) Digital hearing aids for high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss: preliminary experience with the RetroX device. Acta Oto-Larygol 125(7):693–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beamer SL, Grant KW, Walden BE (2000) Hearing aid benefit in patients with high-frequency hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 11(8):439–437

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brugel FJ, Schorn K, Fastl H (1991) Effect of venting the ear mould on speech discrimination in masking noise. HNO 39(9):356–361

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cox RM, Alexander GC (1983) Acoustic versus electronic modifications of hearing aid low-frequency output. Ear Hear 4(4):190–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cox RM, Alexander GC (2002) The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol 41(1):30–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cox RM, Stephens D, Kramer SE (2002) Translations of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA). Int J Audiol 41(1):3–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garin P, Genard F, Galle C, Fameree MH, Jamart J (2005) Rehabilitation of high-frequency hearing loss with the RetroX auditory implant. B-ENT 1(1):17–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Holube I, Kollmeier B (1991) Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung des subjektiven Hörvermögens: Erstellung der Fragen und Beziehung zum Tonschwellenaudiogramm. Audiologische Akustik 30:48–64

    Google Scholar 

  9. Holube I, Kollmeier B (1994) Modifikation eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung des subjektiven Hörvermögens und dessen Beziehung zur Sprachverständlichkeit in Ruhe und in Störgeräuschen. Audiologische Akustik 33(4):22–35

    Google Scholar 

  10. Horwitz AR, Dubno JR, Ahlstrom JB (2002) Recognition of low-pass-filtered consonants in noise with normal and impaired high-frequency hearing. J Acoust 111(1):409–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuk FK (1991) Perceptual consequence of vents in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 25(3):163–169

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lundberg G, Ovegard A, Hagerman B, Gabrielsson A, Brandstrom U (1992) Perceived sound quality in a hearing aid with vented and closed earmould equalized in frequency response. Scand Audiol 21(2):87–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. MacKenzie K, Browning GG, McClymoont LG (1989) Relationship between earmould venting, comfort and feedback. Br J Audiol 23(4):335–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Noble W, Sinclair S, Byrne D (1998) Improvement in aided sound localization with open earmoulds: observations in people with high-frequency hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 9(1):25–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Smoorenburg GF (1992) Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am 91(1):421–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sweetow RW, Pirzanski CZ (2003) The occlusion effect and ampclusion effect. Semin Hear 24(4):333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Valente M (1996) Hearing aids: standards, options and limitations. Thieme Medical Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wagener K, Kühnel V, Kollmeier B (1999) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztestes für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 38(1):4–15

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztestes für die deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 38(2):44–56

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztestes für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 38(3):86–95

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wesendahl T (2001) Teilimplantation: RetroX® – Luftleitungshörsystem mit retroaurikulärer Schallführung. In: Biesinger E, Iro H (eds) HNO— Praxis Heute. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–176

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wesendahl T (2006) The insertion procedure, aftercare and soft tissue reaction of the 2.5 mm titanium tube system for a TACHAS. Int Tinnitus J 12(1):3–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Winter M, Lenarz T (2005) The RetroX semi-implantable hearing system. Cochl Impl Int 6(suppl 1):62–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Winter M, Wesendahl T (2005) Acoustic properties of a transcutaneous air conduction hearing aid system. Biomed Tech (Berl) 50(suppl 1):42–43

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University of Hannover, Carl Neuberg St. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Minoo Lenarz, Thomas Lenarz, Martin Stieve & Mark Winter

Authors
  1. Minoo Lenarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Lenarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Stieve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minoo Lenarz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lenarz, M., Lenarz, T., Stieve, M. et al. A comparative study of the audiological outcomes with Retro-X (semi-implantable hearing aid system) and conventional open fitting hearing aids. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 265, 1189–1194 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0618-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0618-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation