Search

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL., Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada., Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable., Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options., (© 2017 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: In July 2018 the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant received FDA approval in the US (for patients 12 years and older with conductive and/or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness), reflecting the current trend of moving away from percutaneous hearing solutions towards intact skin systems. Objectives: To critically assess the current literature on safety, efficacy and subjective benefit after implantation with an active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device. Data sources: Literature investigation was performed by electronic database search including PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and manual search of relevant journals and reference lists of included studies. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials and cohort studies, case series and case reports investigating subjective and objective outcomes. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Retrieved literature was screened and extracted by two reviewers independently. Subgroup analysis of indications (conductive and/or mixed hearing loss, single-sided deafness) and participant ages (pediatric vs. adults) was conducted on patients with active transcutaneous bone conduction devices. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of the results in meta-analysis. Results: 39 citations reporting on pre- and postoperative audiological results, speech performance in quiet and in noise, localization testing as well as subjective outcomes were included in this systematic review. Functional gain as well as word recognition score outcomes could be further investigated via meta-analysis. All outcomes reported and summarized here reflect beneficial audiological performance and high patient satisfaction, accompanied with a low complications rate (minor event incidence rate: 9.9 person-years; major incidence rate: 148.9 person-years) for the indications of conductive and mixed hearing loss as well as in individuals suffering from single-sided deafness for all age groups of subjects who underwent active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device implantation. Limitations: A limiting factor of this systematic review was the Level of Evidence of the reviewed literature, comprising 2a/3a studies (cohort studies and case-control studies). Furthermore, the reporting standards, especially in outcomes such as word recognition scores in quiet and in noise, vary across study cites from various countries, which impedes comparisons. Last but not least, no other comparable other device was retrieved as the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device is the only available at the moment. Conclusion: The device’s transcutaneous technology results in a minor event incidence rate of one in 9.9 person-years and a major incidence rate of one in 148.9 person-years. Based on the audiological outcomes, high patient satisfaction as well as the low complication rate, the authors recommend the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device as a safe and effective treatment for patients suffering from hearing loss within the device’s indication criteria (conductive and/or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently no standardized method for reporting audiological, surgical and subjective outcome measures in clinical trials with active middle ear implants (AMEIs). It is often difficult to compare studies due to data incompatibility and to perform meta-analyses across different centres is almost impossible. A committee of ENT and audiological experts from Germany, Austria and Switzerland decided to address this issue by developing new minimal standards for reporting the outcomes of AMEI clinical trials. The consensus presented here aims to provide a recommendation to enable better inter-study comparability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL.Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada.Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable.Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]