{"title":"Bonebridge 和 Vibrant Soundbridge 治疗先天性单侧传导性听力损失的长期安全性和主观满意度。","authors":"Yujie Liu, Lin Yang, Yuan Wang, Jikai Zhu, Wenxi Qiu, Mengshuang Lv, Danni Wang, Shouqin Zhao","doi":"10.14639/0392-100X-N2659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess and compare the long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels of Bonebridge (BB) and Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The hearing effectiveness was measured using sound field hearing threshold (SFHT) and word recognition score (WRS). Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels were measured by questionnaires, including Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale-12 (SSQ-12) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both BB and VSB were effective in improving the hearing of patients with congenital UCHL. Four of the 20 patients discontinued wearing the device postoperatively, and no complications were reported by long-term users. Patients experienced an overall improvement in their hearing experience across most subscales of SSQ-12 and a lower hearing problem rate across most subscales of the APHAB after implantation. However, the 'quality of hearing' subscale in the SSQ-12 did not show any improvement, and the aversiveness subscale in the APHAB exhibited a relatively higher percentage of reported problems after BB or VSB implantation. No significant differences were observed in SFHT, WRS, SSQ-12, and APHAB between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both BB and VSB are effective in improving the hearing of UCHL patients, with high subjective satisfaction and low complication rates in the long-term postoperative period, with no significant difference between the two devices. Follow-up device fitting is essential, especially to address increased device sound or noise after surgery, reduce non-usage rates and achieve higher subjective satisfaction levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":6890,"journal":{"name":"Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica","volume":"44 5","pages":"322-332"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556773/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction of Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge in congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss.\",\"authors\":\"Yujie Liu, Lin Yang, Yuan Wang, Jikai Zhu, Wenxi Qiu, Mengshuang Lv, Danni Wang, Shouqin Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.14639/0392-100X-N2659\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess and compare the long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels of Bonebridge (BB) and Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The hearing effectiveness was measured using sound field hearing threshold (SFHT) and word recognition score (WRS). Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels were measured by questionnaires, including Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale-12 (SSQ-12) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both BB and VSB were effective in improving the hearing of patients with congenital UCHL. Four of the 20 patients discontinued wearing the device postoperatively, and no complications were reported by long-term users. Patients experienced an overall improvement in their hearing experience across most subscales of SSQ-12 and a lower hearing problem rate across most subscales of the APHAB after implantation. However, the 'quality of hearing' subscale in the SSQ-12 did not show any improvement, and the aversiveness subscale in the APHAB exhibited a relatively higher percentage of reported problems after BB or VSB implantation. No significant differences were observed in SFHT, WRS, SSQ-12, and APHAB between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both BB and VSB are effective in improving the hearing of UCHL patients, with high subjective satisfaction and low complication rates in the long-term postoperative period, with no significant difference between the two devices. Follow-up device fitting is essential, especially to address increased device sound or noise after surgery, reduce non-usage rates and achieve higher subjective satisfaction levels.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica\",\"volume\":\"44 5\",\"pages\":\"322-332\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556773/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N2659\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N2659","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction of Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge in congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss.
Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels of Bonebridge (BB) and Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL).
Methods: The hearing effectiveness was measured using sound field hearing threshold (SFHT) and word recognition score (WRS). Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels were measured by questionnaires, including Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale-12 (SSQ-12) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB).
Results: Both BB and VSB were effective in improving the hearing of patients with congenital UCHL. Four of the 20 patients discontinued wearing the device postoperatively, and no complications were reported by long-term users. Patients experienced an overall improvement in their hearing experience across most subscales of SSQ-12 and a lower hearing problem rate across most subscales of the APHAB after implantation. However, the 'quality of hearing' subscale in the SSQ-12 did not show any improvement, and the aversiveness subscale in the APHAB exhibited a relatively higher percentage of reported problems after BB or VSB implantation. No significant differences were observed in SFHT, WRS, SSQ-12, and APHAB between the two groups.
Conclusions: Both BB and VSB are effective in improving the hearing of UCHL patients, with high subjective satisfaction and low complication rates in the long-term postoperative period, with no significant difference between the two devices. Follow-up device fitting is essential, especially to address increased device sound or noise after surgery, reduce non-usage rates and achieve higher subjective satisfaction levels.
期刊介绍:
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica first appeared as “Annali di Laringologia Otologia e Faringologia” and was founded in 1901 by Giulio Masini.
It is the official publication of the Italian Hospital Otology Association (A.O.O.I.) and, since 1976, also of the Società Italiana di Otorinolaringoiatria e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale (S.I.O.Ch.C.-F.).
The journal publishes original articles (clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional surveys, and diagnostic test assessments) of interest in the field of otorhinolaryngology as well as clinical techniques and technology (a short report of unique or original methods for surgical techniques, medical management or new devices or technology), editorials (including editorial guests – special contribution) and letters to the Editor-in-Chief.
Articles concerning science investigations and well prepared systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) on themes related to basic science, clinical otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery have high priority.