New technology can benefit established middle ear implant users: Samba 2 vs previous models of audio processors for Vibrant Soundbridge.

INTRODUCTION: The Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) is a semi-implantable hearing aid for patients with various types of hearing loss and has been available for over 25 years. Recently, new audio processors with advanced signal processing, noise reduction, and multi-microphone technology have appeared. The aim of this study is to compare the benefits of using the newest Samba 2 processor to the previous generation processors in a group of experienced VSB users. METHODS: There were 22 experienced VSB users (mean time of using VSB was 9 years, SD = 2) who had their processor (D404 or Amadé) upgraded to the newest model (Samba 2). The mean age of the subjects was 56 years (SD = 20). Assessments were made by free-field audiometry, speech reception in quiet and noise, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). RESULTS: Hearing tests in free field showed statistically significant improvements in hearing sensitivity and speech discrimination in quiet and noise with the Samba 2 audio processor compared to the earlier technology. PROMs confirmed the benefits of using the newest audio processor and there was more satisfaction in terms of usability. CONCLUSIONS: Access to modern technology for VSB patients provides measurable benefits.

Self-Rated Benefits of Auditory Performance after Bonebridge Implantation in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss, or Single-Sided Deafness.

The Bonebridge implant can be a satisfactory solution for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL or MHL), or with single-sided deafness (SSD). The aim of the study was to assess patients' self-reported benefits with the Bonebridge and characterize the relationships between pre-implantation audiometric data, auditory functioning, and satisfaction after implantation. A focus was to see whether different types of hearing loss were associated with particular benefits. The study sample consisted of 81 patients. Procedures comprised pure tone audiometry before implantation, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and a structured interview asking about satisfaction. Statistically significant improvements after implantation were found in all groups (CHL, MHL, SSD) on the APHAB questionnaire. In the structured interview, patients with SSD were the least satisfied. No significant correlation was found between pre-operative air-bone gap and bone conduction thresholds or with APHAB score. Bonebridge implantation is beneficial to patients with CHL or MHL, or with SSD. Assessment of patients for Bonebridge implantation is complex, and audiometric data should be complemented by patient-reported outcomes to provide deeper insight into their individual needs and attitudes.

A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the audiological performance with the novel adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) to that with a passive bone conduction (BC) implant and to that with a bone conduction device (BCD) on a softband. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject repeated measure in three situations: unaided, with conventional BCDs (passive implant or on softband), and with the ADHEAR. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Ten subjects with conductive hearing loss were evaluated with the ADHEAR. Five of these were users of a passive BC implant (Baha Attract with Baha4); five received a BCD (Baha4) on a softband for test purposes. INTERVENTION: Use of non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Air and bone conduction thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in quiet and noise were assessed. RESULTS: Users of the passive BC implant received comparable hearing benefit with the ADHEAR. The mean aided thresholds in sound field measurements and speech understanding in quiet and noise were similar, when subjects were evaluated either with the ADHEAR or the passive BC implant. The audiological outcomes for the non-implanted group were also comparable between the ADHEAR and the BCD on softband. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our initial data, the ADHEAR seems to be a suitable alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for medical reasons cannot or do not want to undergo surgery for a passive BC implant.

The Bonebridge in Adults with Mixed and Conductive Hearing Loss: Audiological and Quality of Life Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Considering that hearing loss has a significant impact on social functioning, everyday activity and a person's emotional state, one of the most important goals of hearing rehabilitation with bone conduction devices is improvement in a patient's quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To measure self-assessed quality of life in patients implanted with the Bonebridge, a bone conduction device. METHOD: Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with one treatment group. Twenty-one patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss were included, and each individual served as its own control. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to measure patient-reported quality of life before intervention and at 3 and 6 months after activation of the device. At the same time frames, pure-tone audiometry and speech understanding in quiet and in noise were tested. RESULTS: Hearing-specific quality of life increased significantly after intervention and remained stable up to 6 months. Both word recognition in quiet and speech reception threshold in noise were significantly better after 6 months compared to before surgery. Outcomes of aided speech understanding were independent of initial bone conduction thresholds and equally high (word recognition score >75%) across the device's indication range. CONCLUSIONS: The Bonebridge provides not only significant audiological benefit in both speech understanding in quiet and in noise, but also increases self-perceived quality of life in patients suffering from mixed and conductive hearing loss. Together with a very low rate and minor nature of adverse events, it is the state-of-the-art solution for hearing rehabilitation in patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss up to a bone conduction threshold of 45 dB HL.

The Bonebridge implant in older children and adolescents with mixed or conductive hearing loss: Audiological outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: For children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, in whom use of conventional hearing aids is impossible or limited, use of bone conduction devices is recommended. The choice between the available types of devices depends mostly on the degree of hearing loss, age, and anatomical conditions. One device application in children older than 5 years is the Bonebridge implant. The aim of this study is to assess the benefits and safety of this device in children. METHODS: The material was a group of 11 older children and adolescents aged 10-17 years (mean = 14.7, SD = 2.45) with single-sided or bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss, implanted unilaterally with the Bonebridge system at the World Hearing Center in Kajetany near Warsaw between 2014 and 2016. Benefits of the Bonebridge were assessed with warble tone audiometry and word audiometry in free field, as well as an APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire before and after implantation. RESULTS: Hearing tests showed a statistically significant improvement in hearing sensitivity and speech discrimination. Results of the questionnaire confirm the benefits of Bonebridge implantation to the older children in terms of their auditory performance under various acoustic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: At a one-year follow up the Bonebridge system was found to be a safe, efficient, and effective tool for compensating for conductive or mixed hearing loss in older children and adolescents. For good anatomical conditions the Bonebridge implant provides a safe alternative to other popular bone conduction systems.