A longitudinal study on postoperative hearing thresholds with the Vibrant Soundbridge device

  • C. Vincent
  • B. Fraysse
  • J.-P. Lavieille
  • E. Truy
  • O. Sterkers
  • F.-M. Vaneecloo


The Vibrant Soundbridge is a semi-implantable middle ear hearing device used in the rehabilitation of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. In order to evaluate the long-term effects of the implanted part of the device, audiological data from 39 patients implanted over several implant sites across France were collected and analyzed retrospectively. The mean follow-up time was 16 months; 25 patients had a follow-up period of over 1 year. Surgery was uneventful in all cases. The present study of the 39 implanted patients with a mid- to long-term follow-up found a statistically significant modification of hearing thresholds (pre- versus postoperative) for frequencies of 0.5 and 4 kHz. However, the shift of threshold was rather limited (2.79 and 3.34 dB, respectively), and this variation was not statistically different from the evolution of the opposite non-operated ear.


Vibrant Soundbridge Middle ear implant Sensorineural hearing loss 


  1. 1.
    Ball G, Huber A, Goode RL (1997) Scanning laser doppler vibrometry of the middle ear ossicles. Ear Nose Throat J 76:213–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gan RZ, Wood MW, Ball GR, Dietz TG, Dormer KJ (1997) Implantable hearing device performance measured by laser doppler interferometry. Ear Nose Throat J 76:297–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gan RZ, Dyer RK, Wood MW, Dormer KJ (2001) Mass loading on the ossicles and middle ear function. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 110:478–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goode R, Nakamura K, Gyo K, Aritomo H (1989) Comments on “Acoustic transfer characteristics in the human middle ears studied by a SQUID magnetometer method.” J Acoust Soc Am 86:2446–2449Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisch U, Cremers CW, Lenarz T, Weber B, Babighian G, Uziel AS, Proops DW, O’Connor AF, Charachon R, Helms J, Fraysse B (2001) Clinical experience with the Vibrant Soundbridge implant device. Otol Neurotol 22:962–972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fraysse B, Lavieille JP, Schmerber S, Enee V, Truy E, Vincent C, Vaneecloo FM, Sterkers O (2001) A multicenter study of the Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implant: early clinical results and experience. Otol Neurotol 22:952–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishihara S, Aritomo H, Goode R (1993) Effects of changes in mass on middle ear function. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 109:899–910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snik A, Cremers C (2000) The effect of the Floating Mass Transducer in the middle ear on hearing sensitivity. Am J Otol 21:42–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sterkers O, Boucarra D, Labassi S, Bebear JP, Dubreuil C, Frachet B, Fraysse B, Lavieille JP, Magnan J, Martin C, Truy E, Uziel A, Vaneecloo FM (2003) A middle ear implant, the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge: retrospective study of the first 125 patients implanted in France. Otol Neurotol 24:427–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson EP, Deddens AE, Lesser TH, Fredrickson JM (1990) Implantable hearing aids: changes in the evoked-auditory potentials of the monkey in response to increased loading of the stapes. Am J Otolaryngol 11:149–152PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Vincent
    • 1
  • B. Fraysse
    • 2
  • J.-P. Lavieille
    • 3
  • E. Truy
    • 4
  • O. Sterkers
    • 5
  • F.-M. Vaneecloo
    • 1
  1. 1.Service Otologie et Otoneurologie CHU de LilleHôpital SalengroLilleFrance
  2. 2.Service ORL CHU de ToulouseHôpital PurpanToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Service ORLCHU de GrenobleGrenobleFrance
  4. 4.Service ORLCHU de Lyon Hôpital HerriotLyonFrance
  5. 5.Service ORL, AP-HPHôpital BeaujonClichyFrance

Personalised recommendations