Speech Perception Gap Is Predictive of an Active Middle Ear Implant Advantage.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether the difference between word recognition score (WRS) obtained unaided under earphone and with a hearing aid (HA), the speech perception gap (SPgap), is predictive of performance with a totally implantable active middle ear implant (AMEI). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of systematically collected data. SETTING: Private otologic practice. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty six ears (133 patients) with sensorineural hearing loss implanted with an AMEI. Subjects were 73.5% men, with mean age = 61.3 years. INTERVENTION: Previous AMEI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: WRS with earphone at phonetically balanced maximum (PB-MAX), and with HA and AMEI at 50 dB HL. Differences between earphone, HA and AMEI word recognition, grouped as positive or negative speech perception gap (+SPgap/-SPgap) between two devices. RESULTS: A +SPgap (WRS poorer with device than earphone) occurred in 86.0% of patients with HA and 42.3% with the AMEI. Mean SPgap = 24.7% with HA and 3.0% with AMEI (p ≤ 0.001). With a HA +SPgap, AMEI performance was better than HA by an average difference of 23.2% WRS, with AMEI more than HA in 82.9% of subjects. With HA -SPgap, the mean difference was 1.1% correct and AMEI more than HA in 47.4% of subjects (p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.002, for mean difference and percent of subjects, respectively). The larger the +SPgap (earphone-HA), the greater the advantage of AMEI over HA (r = 0.62, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: A speech perception gap between earphone PB-MAX and aided word recognition score suggests a patient may have better speech perception with an AMEI than with his/her hearing aid. This information is useful for counseling patients who are not performing well or are unsatisfied with their hearing aid.

Comparing Light-Driven Contact Hearing Aids with Acoustic Hearing Aids: Data and Clinical Tips.

INTRODUCTION: Contact hearing aids (CHA) offer potential advantages over conventional acoustic hearing aids (AHA) in terms of sound quality, reduced occlusion, and increased high-frequency gain. This study evaluates objective and subjective outcome data for CHA compared to AHA. METHODS: Clinical outcome data were retrospectively reviewed for patients wearing CHA. Individual and group data were analyzed and then compared to unaided and AHA data. Adverse effects, device complaints, and clinical utility were documented throughout the device fitting and follow-up process. RESULTS: CHA outcomes were better than unaided hearing and AHA for all patients completing the 3-month CHA trial period (45%). However, CHA return rate was high (55%), most often due to device repair and fit issues. Two patients returned the devices due to poor hearing benefit, though both were off-label audiometric candidates. Significantly more clinical time was required from both audiologists and otolaryngologists to successfully fit and maintain maximum device benefit. CONCLUSIONS: For proper audiometric and otologic candidates, this light-driven CHA can offer significant improvements in high-frequency sound fidelity, word recognition, and sound quality compared to AHA technology. Administering questionnaires was helpful in illuminating real-world improvements. Device fit, alignment, and quality control issues are improving, though still contributing to high device return rates at this time. Operational factors should be considered when incorporating CHA into a hearing health care practice.

Totally implantable active middle ear implant: Hearing and safety results in a large series.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate hearing performance and safety measures in a large group of totally implantable active middle ear implant (AMEI) wearers. METHODS: Retrospective case review of 172 ears (166 patients) with sensorineural hearing loss undergoing implantation of a totally implantable AMEI. Pure-tone air and bone thresholds, pure-tone average, speech reception threshold (SRT), and word recognition scores (WRS) at phonetically balanced maximum and at 50 dB (WRS50) were assessed at baseline unaided, with a hearing aid (baseline aided [BLA]), with the implant at activation, and for best implant postoperative measurement. Adverse events were reviewed. RESULTS: Mean length of follow-up was 35.7 months. Compared to unaided, the implant provided significant gain at all frequencies through 6 kHz. Amount of gain was significantly better with the implant than BLA at 1,500 and 2,000 Hz (P ≤ .001). Implant SRT was also significantly improved compared to BLA (29.9 dB vs. 38.5 dB, P ≤ .001). At a 50-dB presentation level, WRS was significantly better with the implant than BLA (65.6% vs. 45.5%, P ≤ .001). Bone conduction thresholds were not affected by the implant. The most common adverse event was taste disturbance, which occurred in 39.1%. In subjects with preimplant tinnitus, 56.1% experienced resolution of their tinnitus. Revision surgery was required in 15.7%, and 4% were ultimately explanted. CONCLUSION: The implant provided significant hearing benefit compared to unaided and to the subjects' own hearing aids in most test categories, with minimal adverse events. Many subjects experienced complete resolution of their tinnitus after implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 128:2872-2878, 2018.