{"title":"单侧耳聋随机交叉研究,比较软骨传导 CROS 系统和空气传导 CROS 系统。","authors":"Ken Takaki, Akinori Kashio, Etsushi Nozaki, Tomomi Kanai, Teru Kamogashira, Fumikazu Saze, Tsukasa Uranaka, Shinji Urata, Hajime Koyama, Yoshihiro Kawahara, Tatsuya Yamasoba","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate if cartilage conduction (CC) rerouting devices are noninferior to air-conduction (AC) rerouting devices for single-sided deafness (SSD) patients by measuring objective and subjective performance using speech-in-noise tests that resemble a realistic hearing environment, sound localization tests, and standardized questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective, single-subject randomized, crossover study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Anechoic room inside a university.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Nine adults between 21 and 58 years of age with severe or profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients' baseline hearing was assessed; they then used both the cartilage conduction contralateral routing of signals device (CC-CROS) and an air-conduction CROS hearing aid (AC-CROS). Patients wore each device for 2 weeks in a randomly assigned order.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Three main outcome measures were 1) speech-in-noise tests, measuring speech reception thresholds; 2) proportion of correct sound localization responses; and 3) scores on the questionnaires, \"Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit\" (APHAB) and \"Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale\" with 12 questions (SSQ-12).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Speech reception threshold improved significantly when noise was ambient, and speech was presented from the front or the poor-ear side with both CC-CROS and AC-CROS. When speech was delivered from the better-ear side, AC-CROS significantly improved performance, whereas CC-CROS had no significant effect. Both devices mainly worsened sound localization, whereas the APHAB and SSQ-12 scores showed benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CC-CROS has noninferior hearing-in-noise performance except when the speech was presented to the better ear under ambient noise. Subjective measures showed that the patients realized the effectiveness of both devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized Crossover Study in Single-Sided Deafness Comparing a Cartilage Conduction CROS System and an Air-Conduction CROS System.\",\"authors\":\"Ken Takaki, Akinori Kashio, Etsushi Nozaki, Tomomi Kanai, Teru Kamogashira, Fumikazu Saze, Tsukasa Uranaka, Shinji Urata, Hajime Koyama, Yoshihiro Kawahara, Tatsuya Yamasoba\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate if cartilage conduction (CC) rerouting devices are noninferior to air-conduction (AC) rerouting devices for single-sided deafness (SSD) patients by measuring objective and subjective performance using speech-in-noise tests that resemble a realistic hearing environment, sound localization tests, and standardized questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective, single-subject randomized, crossover study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Anechoic room inside a university.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Nine adults between 21 and 58 years of age with severe or profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients' baseline hearing was assessed; they then used both the cartilage conduction contralateral routing of signals device (CC-CROS) and an air-conduction CROS hearing aid (AC-CROS). Patients wore each device for 2 weeks in a randomly assigned order.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Three main outcome measures were 1) speech-in-noise tests, measuring speech reception thresholds; 2) proportion of correct sound localization responses; and 3) scores on the questionnaires, \\\"Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit\\\" (APHAB) and \\\"Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale\\\" with 12 questions (SSQ-12).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Speech reception threshold improved significantly when noise was ambient, and speech was presented from the front or the poor-ear side with both CC-CROS and AC-CROS. When speech was delivered from the better-ear side, AC-CROS significantly improved performance, whereas CC-CROS had no significant effect. Both devices mainly worsened sound localization, whereas the APHAB and SSQ-12 scores showed benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CC-CROS has noninferior hearing-in-noise performance except when the speech was presented to the better ear under ambient noise. Subjective measures showed that the patients realized the effectiveness of both devices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004199\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004199","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Randomized Crossover Study in Single-Sided Deafness Comparing a Cartilage Conduction CROS System and an Air-Conduction CROS System.
Objective: To investigate if cartilage conduction (CC) rerouting devices are noninferior to air-conduction (AC) rerouting devices for single-sided deafness (SSD) patients by measuring objective and subjective performance using speech-in-noise tests that resemble a realistic hearing environment, sound localization tests, and standardized questionnaires.
Study design: Prospective, single-subject randomized, crossover study.
Setting: Anechoic room inside a university.
Patients: Nine adults between 21 and 58 years of age with severe or profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
Interventions: Patients' baseline hearing was assessed; they then used both the cartilage conduction contralateral routing of signals device (CC-CROS) and an air-conduction CROS hearing aid (AC-CROS). Patients wore each device for 2 weeks in a randomly assigned order.
Main outcome measures: Three main outcome measures were 1) speech-in-noise tests, measuring speech reception thresholds; 2) proportion of correct sound localization responses; and 3) scores on the questionnaires, "Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit" (APHAB) and "Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale" with 12 questions (SSQ-12).
Results: Speech reception threshold improved significantly when noise was ambient, and speech was presented from the front or the poor-ear side with both CC-CROS and AC-CROS. When speech was delivered from the better-ear side, AC-CROS significantly improved performance, whereas CC-CROS had no significant effect. Both devices mainly worsened sound localization, whereas the APHAB and SSQ-12 scores showed benefits.
Conclusion: CC-CROS has noninferior hearing-in-noise performance except when the speech was presented to the better ear under ambient noise. Subjective measures showed that the patients realized the effectiveness of both devices.
期刊介绍:
Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.