Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term functional outcome and satisfaction of patients with an active middle ear implant for sensorineural hearing loss compared to a matched population with conventional hearing aids

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

Abstract

The objectives of the study were to review the results of an active middle ear implant for sensorineural hearing loss in patients who were unable to wear or did not benefit from conventional hearing aids in comparison to patients with a matched degree of hearing loss successfully fitted with a conventional hearing aid. A retrospective chart review of 10 patients (10 ears) after implantation of an active middle ear implant and 12 patients (13 ears) with conventional hearing aids in one tertiary referral center was performed. Intervention for sensorineural hearing loss was the implantation of an active middle ear implant in one group or fitting of conventional hearing aids in the other group. Outcome measures were pure-tone audiometry (auditory thresholds, functional gain), speech audiometry (Freiburg Monosyllabic Test in quiet and in noise) and a quality-of-life questionnaire (Glasgow Benefit Inventory). Average functional gain was 25.2 ± 8.6 and 14.6 ± 10.8 dB, speech recognition score in noise was 36.6 ± 18.4 and 31.2 ± 19.2 % and in quiet was 66.0 ± 23.2 and 61.5 ± 23.8 %, Glasgow Benefit Inventory total score was 38.3 ± 32.3 and 24.8 ± 22.2 in patients with active middle ear implants and conventional hearing aids, respectively. In two patient groups matched for degree of sensorineural hearing loss, active middle ear implants provided comparable speech recognition and superior functional gain and quality of life compared to conventional hearing aids.

Level of evidence: 4

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chung K (2004) Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part II. Feedback and occlusion effect reduction strategies, laser shell manufacturing processes, and other signal processing technologies. Trends Amplif 8(4):125–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Karaca CT, Akcay SS, Toros SZ, Oysu C, Verim A, Celebi S, Aksaray S (2013) External auditory canal microbiology and hearing aid use. Am J Otolaryngol 34(4):278–281. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huttenbrink KB (1999) Current status and critical reflections on implantable hearing aids. Am J Otol 20(4):409–415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Butler CL, Thavaneswaran P, Lee IH (2013) Efficacy of the active middle-ear implant in patients with sensorineural hearing loss. J Laryngol Otol 127(Suppl 2):S8–S16. doi:10.1017/s0022215113001151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tysome JR, Moorthy R, Lee A, Jiang D, O’Connor AF (2010) Systematic review of middle ear implants: do they improve hearing as much as conventional hearing AIDS? Otol Neurotol 31(9):1369–1375. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181db716c

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(3):427–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(6):962–972

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(6):952–961

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Silverstein H, Atkins J, Thompson JH Jr, Gilman N (2005) Experience with the SOUNDTEC implantable hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 26(2):211–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jenkins HA, Niparko JK, Slattery WH, Neely JG, Fredrickson JM (2004) Otologics middle ear transducer ossicular stimulator: performance results with varying degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol 124(4):391–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bruschini L, Forli F, Passetti S, Bruschini P, Berrettini S (2010) Fully implantable Otologics MET Carina(™) device for the treatment of sensorineural and mixed hearing loss: audio-otological results. Acta Otolaryngol 130(10):1147–1153. doi:10.3109/00016481003671244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Komori M, Yanagihara N, Hinohira Y, Hato N, Gyo K (2010) Long-term results with the Rion E-type semi-implantable hearing aid. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 143(3):422–428. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2010.04.267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen DA, Backous DD, Arriaga MA, Garvin R, Kobylek D, Littman T, Walgren S, Lura D (2004) Phase 1 clinical trial results of the envoy system: a totally implantable middle ear device for sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131(6):904–916. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2004.05.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Colletti V, Soli SD, Carner M, Colletti L (2006) Treatment of mixed hearing losses via implantation of a vibratory transducer on the round window. Int J Audiol 45(10):600–608. doi:10.1080/14992020600840903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Todt I, Seidl RO, Gross M, Ernst A (2002) Comparison of different vibrant soundbridge audioprocessors with conventional hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 23(5):669–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Luetje CM, Brackman D, Balkany TJ, Maw J, Baker RS, Kelsall D, Backous D, Miyamoto R, Parisier S, Arts A (2002) Phase III clinical trial results with the Vibrant Soundbridge implantable middle ear hearing device: a prospective controlled multicenter study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126(2):97–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Verhaegen VJ, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW, Snik AF (2008) Audiological application criteria for implantable hearing aid devices: a clinical experience at the Nijmegen ORL clinic. Laryngoscope 118(9):1645–1649. doi:10.1097/MLG.0b013e31817b013a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ihler F, Kohler S, Meyer AC, Blum J, Strenzke N, Matthias C, Canis M (2013) Mastoid cavity obliteration and vibrant soundbridge implantation for patients with mixed hearing loss. Laryngoscope. doi:10.1002/lary.24180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113(3):186–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gurgel RK, Jackler RK, Dobie RA, Popelka GR (2012) A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147(5):803–807. doi:10.1177/0194599812458401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hahlbrock KH (1953) Speech audiometry and new word-tests. Arch Ohren Nasen Kehlkopfheilkd 162(5):394–431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105(6):415–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sziklai I, Szilvassy J (2011) Functional gain and speech understanding obtained by Vibrant Soundbridge or by open-fit hearing aid. Acta Otolaryngol 131(4):428–433. doi:10.3109/00016489.2011.557394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Uziel A, Mondain M, Hagen P, Dejean F, Doucet G (2003) Rehabilitation for high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairment in adults with the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 24(5):775–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Truy E, Philibert B, Vesson JF, Labassi S, Collet L (2008) Vibrant soundbridge versus conventional hearing aid in sensorineural high-frequency hearing loss: a prospective study. Otol Neurotol 29(5):684–687. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e31817156df

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Boeheim K, Pok SM, Schloegel M, Filzmoser P (2010) Active middle ear implant compared with open-fit hearing aid in sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 31(3):424–429. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181cabd42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hough JV, Dyer RK Jr, Matthews P, Wood MW (2001) Early clinical results: SOUNDTEC implantable hearing device phase II study. Laryngoscope 111(1):1–8. doi:10.1097/00005537-200101000-00001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hough JV, Matthews P, Wood MW, Dyer RK Jr (2002) Middle ear electromagnetic semi-implantable hearing device: results of the phase II SOUNDTEC direct system clinical trial. Otol Neurotol 23(6):895–903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jenkins HA, Atkins JS, Horlbeck D, Hoffer ME, Balough B, Arigo JV, Alexiades G, Garvis W (2007) U.S. Phase I preliminary results of use of the Otologics MET Fully-Implantable Ossicular Stimulator. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137(2):206–212. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2007.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Matthews P (2002) The SOUNDTEC direct system. Trends Amplif 6(2):61–65. doi:10.1177/108471380200600206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Roland PS, Shoup AG, Shea MC, Richey HS, Jones DB (2001) Verification of improved patient outcomes with a partially implantable hearing aid, The SOUNDTEC direct hearing system. Laryngoscope 111(10):1682–1686. doi:10.1097/00005537-200110000-00002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schmuziger N, Schimmann F, aWengen D, Patscheke J, Probst R (2006) Long-term assessment after implantation of the Vibrant Soundbridge device. Otol Neurotol 27(2):183–188. doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000199754.51815.70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bornitz M, Hardtke HJ, Zahnert T (2010) Evaluation of implantable actuators by means of a middle ear simulation model. Hear Res 263(1–2):145–151. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2010.02.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mosnier I, Sterkers O, Bouccara D, Labassi S, Bebear JP, Bordure P, Dubreuil C, Dumon T, Frachet B, Fraysse B, Lavieille JP, Magnan J, Martin C, Meyer B, Mondain M, Portmann D, Robier A, Schmerber S, Thomassin JM, Truy E, Uziel A, Vanecloo FM, Vincent C, Ferrary E (2008) Benefit of the Vibrant Soundbridge device in patients implanted for 5 to 8 years. Ear Hear 29(2):281–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pok SM, Schlogel M, Boheim K (2010) Clinical experience with the active middle ear implant Vibrant Soundbridge in sensorineural hearing loss. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 69:51–58. doi:10.1159/000318522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Todt I, Seidl RO, Ernst A (2005) Hearing benefit of patients after Vibrant Soundbridge implantation. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 67(4):203–206. doi:10.1159/000087289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lenarz T, Weber BP, Issing PR, Gnadeberg D, Ambjornsen K, Mack KF, Winter M (2001) Vibrant Sound Bridge System. A new kind hearing prosthesis for patients with sensorineural hearing loss. 2. Audiological results. Laryngorhinootologie 80(7):370–380. doi:10.1055/s-2001-15707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Snik AF, van Duijnhoven NT, Mulder JJ, Cremers CW (2007) Evaluation of the subjective effect of middle ear implantation in hearing-impaired patients with severe external otitis. J Am Acad Audiol 18(6):496–503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Swan IR, Guy FH, Akeroyd MA (2012) Health-related quality of life before and after management in adults referred to otolaryngology: a prospective national study. Clin Otolaryngol 37(1):35–43. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2011.02433.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tsakiropoulou E, Konstantinidis I, Vital I, Konstantinidou S, Kotsani A (2007) Hearing aids: quality of life and socio-economic aspects. Hippokratia 11(4):183–186

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Nadine Herrmann, Bettina Linde, Jeannine Müller, Albert Arnemann and Stefan Thom for expert technical assistance. This work is part of the doctoral thesis of Julian Bewarder.

Conflict of interest

The authors did not receive any funding from a third party for this work. Additionally, the authors declare no financial interests in companies or other entities that have an interest in the information in the contribution (including Grants, advisory boards, employment, consultancies, contracts, honoraria, royalties, expert testimony, partnerships or stock ownership in medically related fields).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Göttingen Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37099, Göttingen, Germany

    Friedrich Ihler, Julian Bewarder, Jenny Blum, Christoph Matthias & Martin Canis

Authors
  1. Friedrich Ihler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Bewarder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jenny Blum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph Matthias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Canis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Canis.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ihler, F., Bewarder, J., Blum, J. et al. Long-term functional outcome and satisfaction of patients with an active middle ear implant for sensorineural hearing loss compared to a matched population with conventional hearing aids. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271, 3161–3169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2811-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2811-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation