...
首页> 外文期刊>Otology and neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology >Active middle ear implant compared with open-fit hearing aid in sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
【24h】

Active middle ear implant compared with open-fit hearing aid in sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.

机译:主动中耳植入物与开放式助听器相比,可倾斜高频感音神经性听力损失。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 open-ear hearing solutions for sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss: open-fit hearing aid (HA) and active middle ear implant (AMEI). STUDY DESIGN: Within-subjects prospective design. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS AND DEVICES: Fourteen patients with sloping, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss were recruited from 39 patients previously implanted with an AMEI and 10 agreed to participate, ranging in age from 44 to 73 years (mean, 59 yr). Patients were selected because their hearing thresholds (500-3,000 Hz) qualified them for both AMEI and open-fit HA use. All patients received a Vibrant Soundbridge (Vibrant MED-EL) for an average of 25.1 months before data collection and used their AMEI on a daily basis. The open-fit HA used in this study was the Delta 8000 (Oticon). Both study devices have been fit with the specific fitting strategies as recommended by the manufacturer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sound-field hearing thresholds, Freiburger monosyllabic words in quiet, speech reception thresholds for 50% correct recognition for Freiburger numbers and for Oldenburg sentences in quiet, and speech reception thresholds for 50% correct recognition for Oldenburg sentences in noise. RESULTS: Both HA and AMEI conditions showed significantly better sound-field thresholds and speech recognition on monosyllabic word and sentence tests in quiet and in noise than in the unaided condition. A comparison of aided conditions revealed that, in the AMEI-aided condition, high-frequency audibility and speech discrimination scores in quiet and in noise were significantly better than those in the open-fit HA. CONCLUSION: Both open-fit HAs and AMEIs provided audiologic benefit to patients with sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. However, despite overlapping indication criteria for the 2 devices, performance with the AMEI was significantly better for the AMEI than for the open-fit HA.
机译:目的:比较两种用于倾斜高频感音神经性听力损失的开放式耳朵听力解决方案:开放式助听器(HA)和有源中耳植入物(AMEI)。研究设计:受试者内部的前瞻性设计。单位:三级转诊医院。患者与设备:从39例先前植入AMEI的患者中招募了14例高频高频感音神经性耳聋患者,其中10例同意参加,年龄在44至73岁之间(平均59岁)。选择患者是因为他们的听力阈值(500-3,000 Hz)使他们有资格同时使用AMEI和开放式HA。所有患者在收集数据之前平均接受25.1个月的充满活力的声桥(Vibrant MED-EL),并每天使用他们的AMEI。在这项研究中使用的开放式HA是Delta 8000(Oticon)。两种研究设备均符合制造商建议的特定安装策略。主要观察指标:声场听力阈值,安静的弗莱堡单音节词,安静的弗莱堡数和奥尔登堡句子的语音接收阈值正确识别率分别为50%和噪声中的奥尔登堡句子的语音接收阈值正确识别率达到50%。结果:在安静和噪音条件下,单音节单词和句子测试中的HA和AMEI条件均显示出明显更好的声场阈值和语音识别。辅助条件的比较表明,在AMEI辅助条件下,安静和噪音条件下的高频可听性和语音辨别力得分明显优于开放式HA。结论:开放式HA和AMEI均为倾斜的高频感觉神经性听力损失患者提供了听觉上的益处。但是,尽管2个设备的指示标准重叠,但AMEI的性能明显优于开放式HA。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号