Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8mwbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-09T06:34:01.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of the active middle-ear implant in patients with sensorineural hearing loss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

C L Butler ,
P Thavaneswaran  and
I H Lee
C L Butler
Affiliation:
Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
P Thavaneswaran*
Affiliation:
Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
I H Lee
Affiliation:
Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Prema Thavaneswaran, ASERNIP-S, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 199 Ward Street, North Adelaide, SA, Australia5006 Fax: +61 8 8219 0999 E-mail: asernips@surgeons.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

This systematic review aims to advise on the effectiveness of the active middle-ear implant in patients with sensorineural hearing loss, compared with external hearing aids.

Methods:

A systematic search of several electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, was used to identify relevant studies for inclusion.

Results:

Fourteen comparative studies were included. Nine studies reported on the primary outcome of functional gain: one found that the middle-ear implant was significantly better than external hearing aids (p < 0.001), while another found that external hearing aids were generally significantly better than middle-ear implants (p < 0.05). Six of the seven remaining studies found that middle-ear implants were better than external hearing aids, although generally no clinically significant difference (i.e. ≥10 dB) was seen.

Conclusion:

Generally, the active middle-ear implant appears to be as effective as the external hearing aid in improving hearing outcomes in patients with sensorineural hearing loss.

Keywords

Ear, MiddleOssicular ProsthesisHearing AidsHearing LossReview

Information

Type
Review Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Supplement S2 , July 2013 , pp. S8 - S16
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

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

1Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, No. 89. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2007Google Scholar
2Wilson, DH, Walsh, PG, Sanchez, L, Davis, AC, Taylor, AW, Tucker, G et al. The epidemiology of hearing impairment in an Australian adult population. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28:247–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's Health 2008. Cat. no. AUS 99. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008Google Scholar
4National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Cochlear Implants for Children and Adults With Severe to Profound Deafness. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009Google Scholar
5Kim, HH, Barrs, DM. Hearing aids: a review of what's new. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134:1043–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6NIH: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders: Quick Statistics. In: http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick.htm [12 July 2011]Google Scholar
7Backous, DD, Duke, W. Implantable middle ear hearing devices: current state of technology and market challenges. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;14:314–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Chang, P. Implantable hearing devices: beyond hearing aids. Aust Fam Physician 2005;34:157–61Google ScholarPubMed
9Counter, P. Implantable hearing aids. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2008;222:837–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Moeller, MP. Current state of knowledge: psychosocial development in children with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 2007;28:729–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11HEAR: Listen Hear! The economic impact and cost of hearing loss in Australia. In: http://www.audiology.asn.au/pdf/ListenHearFinal.pdf [14 April 2009]Google Scholar
12Coates, HL, Morris, PS, Leach, AJ, Couzos, S. Otitis media in Aboriginal children: tackling a major health problem. Med J Aust 2002;177:177–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Manrique, M, Valdivieso, A, Ruba, D, Gimeno-Vilar, C, Montes-Jovellar, L, Manrique, R. Review of audiometric criteria in treatment of neurosensorial deafness with hearing aids and implantable hearing devices [in Spanish]. Acta Otorhinolaringol Esp 2008;59:30–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Kulkarni, K, Hartley, DE. Recent advances in hearing restoration. J R Soc Med 2008;101:116–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Snik, AF, Cremers, CW. The effect of the “floating mass transducer” in the middle ear on hearing sensitivity. Am J Otol 2000;21:42–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Hough, JV, Dyer, RK Jr, Matthews, P, Wood, MW. Early clinical results: SOUNDTEC implantable hearing device phase II study. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Vincent, C, Fraysse, B, Lavieille, JP, Truy, E, Sterkers, O, Vaneecloo, FM. A longitudinal study on postoperative hearing thresholds with the Vibrant Soundbridge device. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2004;261:493–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18National Health and Medical Research Council: NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. In: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/evidence_statement_form.pdf [18 November 2010]Google Scholar
19Verhaegen, VJ, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW, Snik, AF. Audiological application criteria for implantable hearing aid devices: a clinical experience at the Nijmegen ORL clinic. Laryngoscope 2008;118:1645–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Jenkins, HA, Atkins, JS, Horlbeck, D, Hoffer, ME, Balough, B, Arigo, JV et al. US Phase I preliminary results of use of the Otologics MET fully-implantable ossicular stimulator. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:206–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Todt, I, Seidl, RO, Ernst, A. Hearing benefit of patients after Vibrant Soundbridge implantation. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2005;67:203–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Chen, DA, Backous, DD, Arriaga, MA, Garvin, R, Kobylek, D, Littman, T et al. Phase 1 clinical trial results of the envoy system: a totally implantable middle ear device for sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131:904–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Jenkins, 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;124:391–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Uziel, A, Mondain, M, Hagen, P, Dejean, F, Doucet, G. Rehabilitation for high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairment in adults with the Symphonix Vibrant Soundbridge: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:775–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Luetje, CM, Brackman, D, Balkany, TJ, Maw, J, Baker, RS, Kelsall, D et al. Phase III clinical trial results with the Vibrant Soundbridge implantable middle ear hearing device: a prospective controlled multicenter study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:97–107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Matthews, P. The SOUNDTEC Direct System. Trends Amplif 2002;6:61–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Thill, MP, Gerard, JM, Garin, P, Offeciers, E. Belgian experience with the Vibrant Soundbridge prosthesis. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 2002;56:375–8Google ScholarPubMed
28Todt, I, Seidl, RO, Gross, M, Ernst, A. Comparison of different Vibrant Soundbridge audioprocessors with conventional hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:669–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Fraysse, B, Lavieille, JP, Schmerber, S, Enee, V, Truy, E, Vincent, C et al. A multicenter study of the Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implant: early clinical results and experience. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:952–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Roland, PS, Shoup, AG, Shea, MC, Richey, HS, Jones, DB. Verification of improved patient outcomes with a partially implantable hearing aid, the SOUNDTEC Direct Hearing System. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1682–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Snik, AF, Cremers, CW. Vibrant semi-implantable hearing device with digital sound processing: effective gain and sound perception. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;127:1433–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Altman, D, Schulz, K, Moher, D, Egger, M, Davidoff, F, Elbourne, D et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Haynes, DS, Young, JA, Wanna, GB, Glasscock, ME. Middle ear implantable hearing devices: an overview. Trends Amplif 2009;13:206–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Sprinzl, GM, Riechelmann, H. Current trends in treating hearing loss in elderly people: a review of the technology and treatment options – a mini-review. Gerontology 2010;56:351–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Kochkin, S. MarkeTrakVII: hearing loss population tops 31 million people. The Hearing Review 2005;12:16–29Google Scholar