Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-pk5m8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-11T02:43:47.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Carina active middle-ear implant with conventional hearing aids for mixed hearing loss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2016

V A Savaş ,
B Gündüz ,
R Karamert ,
R Cevizci ,
M Düzlü ,
H Tutar  and
Y A Bayazit
V A Savaş
Affiliation:
ENT Clinic, Silvan State Hospital, Diyarbakır, Ankara, Turkey
B Gündüz
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
R Karamert*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
R Cevizci
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
M Düzlü
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
H Tutar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
Y A Bayazit
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Recep Karamert, KBB Anabilim Dalı, Tıp Fakültesi, Gazi Universitesi, Beşevler, 06500 Ankara, Turkey Fax: +90 312 202 4357 E-mail: recepkaramert@gazi.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the auditory outcomes of Carina middle-ear implants with those of conventional hearing aids in patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss.

Methods:

The study comprised nine patients (six males, three females) who underwent middle-ear implantation with Carina fully implantable active middle-ear implants to treat bilateral moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss. The patients initially used conventional hearing aids and subsequently received the Carina implants. The hearing thresholds with implants and hearing aids were compared.

Results:

There were no significant differences between: the pre-operative and post-operative air and bone conduction thresholds (p > 0.05), the thresholds with hearing aids and Carina implants (p > 0.05), or the pre-operative (mean, 72.8 ± 19 per cent) and post-operative (mean, 69.9 ± 24 per cent) speech discrimination scores (p > 0.05). One of the patients suffered total sensorineural hearing loss three months following implantation despite an initial 38 dB functional gain. All except one patient showed clinical improvements after implantation according to quality of life questionnaire (Glasgow Benefit Inventory) scores.

Conclusion:

Acceptance of Carina implants is better than with conventional hearing aids in patients with mixed hearing loss, although both yield similar hearing amplification. Cosmetic reasons appear to be critical for patient acceptance.

Keywords

Middle Ear ImplantHearing AidsMixed Hearing Loss

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 4 , April 2016 , pp. 340 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Klein, K, Nardelli, A, Stafinski, T.A systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of fully implantable middle ear hearing devices: the Carina and Esteem systems. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:916–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Bruschini, L, Forli, F, Santoro, A, Bruschini, P, Berrettini, S.Fully implantable Otologics MET Carina device for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. Preliminary surgical and clinical results. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2009;29:79–85Google ScholarPubMed
3Tringali, S, Pergola, N, Berger, P, Dubreuil, C.Fully implantable hearing device with transducer on the round window as a treatment of mixed hearing loss. Auris Nasus Larynx 2009;36:353–8Google Scholar
4Shaw, EA. 1979 Rayleigh Medical Lecture: the elusive connection. In: Gatehouse, R, ed. Localization of Sound: Theory and Applications. Groton, Connecticut: Amphora, 1982;13–29Google Scholar
5Ko, WH, Zhu, WL, Kane, M, Maniglia, AJ.Engineering principles applied to implantable otologics devices. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2001;34:299–314CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Dumon, T, Zennaro, O, Aran, JM, Bebear, JP.Piezoelectric middle ear implant preserving the ossicular chain. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995;28:173–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Spindel, JH, Lambert, PR, Ruth, RA.The round window electromagnetic implantable hearing aid approach. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995;28:189–205Google Scholar
8Colletti, V, Soli, SD, Carner, M, Colletti, L.Treatment of mixed hearing losses via implantation of a vibratory transducer on the round window. Int J Audiol 2006;45:600–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Jenkins, HA, Niparko, JK, Slattery, WH, Neely, JG, Fredrickson, JM.Otologics Middle Ear Transducer Ossicular Stimulator: performance results with varying degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:391–4Google Scholar
10Jenkins, HA, Atkins, JS, Horlbeck, D, Hoffer, ME, Balough, B, Arigo, JV et al. Phase 1 preliminary results of use of the Otologics MET Fully Implantable Ossicular Stimulator. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:206–12Google Scholar
11Jenkins, HA, Atkins, JS, Horlbeck, D, Hoffer, ME, Balough, B, Alexiades, G et al. Otologics fully implantable hearing system: phase I trial 1-year results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:534–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Lefebvre, PP, Martin, C, Dubreuil, C, Decat, M, Yazbeck, A, Kasic, J et al. A pilot study of the safety and performance of the Otologics fully implantable hearing device: transducing sounds via the round window membrane to the inner ear. Audiol Neurotol 2009;14:172–80Google Scholar
13Martin, C, Deveze, A, Richard, C, Lefebvre, PP, Decat, M, Ibanez, LG et al. European results with totally implantable Carina placed on the round window: 2-year follow-up. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:1196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Tringali, S, Pergola, N, Ferber-Viart, C, Truy, E, Berger, P, Dubreuil, C.Fully implantable hearing device as a new treatment of conductive hearing loss in Franceschetti syndrome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72:513–51Google Scholar
15Siegert, R, Mattheis, S, Kasic, J.Fully implantable hearing aids in patients with congenital auricular atresia. Laryngoscope 2007;117:336–40Google Scholar
16Venail, F, Lavieille, JP, Meller, R, Deveze, A, Tardivet, L, Magnan, J.New perspectives for middle ear implants: first results in otosclerosis with mixed hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2007;117:552–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed