Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: An audiological comparison of current hearing systems

Various different hearing systems are available for device-supported hearing rehabilitation of patients with mixed hearing loss. Using the recently introduced objective comparison criterion "maximum output" (i.e., the maximum output level of a hearing device), the indications for different...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:HNO 2016-02, Vol.64 (2), p.91-100
Hauptverfasser: Rahne, T, Plontke, S K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:ger
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 100
container_issue 2
container_start_page 91
container_title HNO
container_volume 64
creator Rahne, T
Plontke, S K
description Various different hearing systems are available for device-supported hearing rehabilitation of patients with mixed hearing loss. Using the recently introduced objective comparison criterion "maximum output" (i.e., the maximum output level of a hearing device), the indications for different hearing devices can be compared. This article reviews important terms such as gain, dynamic range, and maximum output level-all of which are relevant for the selection of a hearing device. The experimental part of this study compares all currently available hearing devices and determines the range of their indication with respect to the maximum bone-conduction hearing threshold. The maximum frequency-specific output levels reported in the literature for the Baha Cordelle 2, the Sophono Alpha 2, and the Bonebridge (measured at the skull simulator), as well as those of the Codacs and the Soundbridge (in-vivo measurements) are compared to the maximum output levels given in the datasheets of the BP110 Power, the Baha Cordelle 2, the Bonebridge, the Codacs, the Ponto Pro Power, and the Sophono Alpha 2. Using appropriate correction factors, the maximum dynamic range and thus the maximum indication based on the bone-conduction threshold was determined. In patients with mild sensorineural hearing loss, passive transcutaneous hearing or Bonebridge implants can achieve good audiological results. In the transition region to moderate hearing loss, percutaneous devices are applicable. Combined hearing loss with more pronounced sensorineural hearing loss is best treated with a Soundbridge or Codacs implant. In the latter case, the cochlear potential for speech recognition has to be explored and, where appropriate, cochlear implants considered as an alternative.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00106-015-0087-5
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1765109264</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1765109264</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p141t-4b85a0dbff4608349d2c40d6b983b1eee3efd7be678bf67b279828dcb02ddfbf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kMtOwzAQRS0kREvhA9igLNkYxrHjOOyq8pQqsYF15Me4BCVxsRNE_55UtKuR7j3nLoaQKwa3DKC8SwAMJAVWUABV0uKEzJngnIIo1Iycp_Q1EUWV8zMyy6UEJqWaE_uAP41FanRClw0R9dBhP2TBZ13zO0WfqGPTb7I2pHSfLftMj64Jbdg0VreZDd126lPo94YdY9zLRyft0oBduiCnXrcJLw93QT6eHt9XL3T99vy6Wq7plgk2UGFUocEZ74UExUXlcivASVMpbhgicvSuNChLZbwsTV5WKlfOGsid88bzBbn5393G8D1iGuquSRbbVvcYxlSzUhYMqlyKCb0-oKPp0NXb2HQ67urjY_gfvZVllw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1765109264</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: An audiological comparison of current hearing systems</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Rahne, T ; Plontke, S K</creator><creatorcontrib>Rahne, T ; Plontke, S K</creatorcontrib><description>Various different hearing systems are available for device-supported hearing rehabilitation of patients with mixed hearing loss. Using the recently introduced objective comparison criterion "maximum output" (i.e., the maximum output level of a hearing device), the indications for different hearing devices can be compared. This article reviews important terms such as gain, dynamic range, and maximum output level-all of which are relevant for the selection of a hearing device. The experimental part of this study compares all currently available hearing devices and determines the range of their indication with respect to the maximum bone-conduction hearing threshold. The maximum frequency-specific output levels reported in the literature for the Baha Cordelle 2, the Sophono Alpha 2, and the Bonebridge (measured at the skull simulator), as well as those of the Codacs and the Soundbridge (in-vivo measurements) are compared to the maximum output levels given in the datasheets of the BP110 Power, the Baha Cordelle 2, the Bonebridge, the Codacs, the Ponto Pro Power, and the Sophono Alpha 2. Using appropriate correction factors, the maximum dynamic range and thus the maximum indication based on the bone-conduction threshold was determined. In patients with mild sensorineural hearing loss, passive transcutaneous hearing or Bonebridge implants can achieve good audiological results. In the transition region to moderate hearing loss, percutaneous devices are applicable. Combined hearing loss with more pronounced sensorineural hearing loss is best treated with a Soundbridge or Codacs implant. In the latter case, the cochlear potential for speech recognition has to be explored and, where appropriate, cochlear implants considered as an alternative.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1433-0458</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00106-015-0087-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26601668</identifier><language>ger</language><publisher>Germany</publisher><subject>Bone Conduction ; Equipment Design ; Equipment Failure Analysis ; Hearing Aids - classification ; Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - physiopathology ; Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - rehabilitation ; Humans ; Sound Spectrography - instrumentation ; Sound Spectrography - methods ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical</subject><ispartof>HNO, 2016-02, Vol.64 (2), p.91-100</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26601668$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rahne, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plontke, S K</creatorcontrib><title>Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: An audiological comparison of current hearing systems</title><title>HNO</title><addtitle>HNO</addtitle><description>Various different hearing systems are available for device-supported hearing rehabilitation of patients with mixed hearing loss. Using the recently introduced objective comparison criterion "maximum output" (i.e., the maximum output level of a hearing device), the indications for different hearing devices can be compared. This article reviews important terms such as gain, dynamic range, and maximum output level-all of which are relevant for the selection of a hearing device. The experimental part of this study compares all currently available hearing devices and determines the range of their indication with respect to the maximum bone-conduction hearing threshold. The maximum frequency-specific output levels reported in the literature for the Baha Cordelle 2, the Sophono Alpha 2, and the Bonebridge (measured at the skull simulator), as well as those of the Codacs and the Soundbridge (in-vivo measurements) are compared to the maximum output levels given in the datasheets of the BP110 Power, the Baha Cordelle 2, the Bonebridge, the Codacs, the Ponto Pro Power, and the Sophono Alpha 2. Using appropriate correction factors, the maximum dynamic range and thus the maximum indication based on the bone-conduction threshold was determined. In patients with mild sensorineural hearing loss, passive transcutaneous hearing or Bonebridge implants can achieve good audiological results. In the transition region to moderate hearing loss, percutaneous devices are applicable. Combined hearing loss with more pronounced sensorineural hearing loss is best treated with a Soundbridge or Codacs implant. In the latter case, the cochlear potential for speech recognition has to be explored and, where appropriate, cochlear implants considered as an alternative.</description><subject>Bone Conduction</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Equipment Failure Analysis</subject><subject>Hearing Aids - classification</subject><subject>Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - physiopathology</subject><subject>Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Sound Spectrography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Sound Spectrography - methods</subject><subject>Technology Assessment, Biomedical</subject><issn>1433-0458</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kMtOwzAQRS0kREvhA9igLNkYxrHjOOyq8pQqsYF15Me4BCVxsRNE_55UtKuR7j3nLoaQKwa3DKC8SwAMJAVWUABV0uKEzJngnIIo1Iycp_Q1EUWV8zMyy6UEJqWaE_uAP41FanRClw0R9dBhP2TBZ13zO0WfqGPTb7I2pHSfLftMj64Jbdg0VreZDd126lPo94YdY9zLRyft0oBduiCnXrcJLw93QT6eHt9XL3T99vy6Wq7plgk2UGFUocEZ74UExUXlcivASVMpbhgicvSuNChLZbwsTV5WKlfOGsid88bzBbn5393G8D1iGuquSRbbVvcYxlSzUhYMqlyKCb0-oKPp0NXb2HQ67urjY_gfvZVllw</recordid><startdate>201602</startdate><enddate>201602</enddate><creator>Rahne, T</creator><creator>Plontke, S K</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201602</creationdate><title>Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: An audiological comparison of current hearing systems</title><author>Rahne, T ; Plontke, S K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p141t-4b85a0dbff4608349d2c40d6b983b1eee3efd7be678bf67b279828dcb02ddfbf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>ger</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Bone Conduction</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Equipment Failure Analysis</topic><topic>Hearing Aids - classification</topic><topic>Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - physiopathology</topic><topic>Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Sound Spectrography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Sound Spectrography - methods</topic><topic>Technology Assessment, Biomedical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rahne, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plontke, S K</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>HNO</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rahne, T</au><au>Plontke, S K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: An audiological comparison of current hearing systems</atitle><jtitle>HNO</jtitle><addtitle>HNO</addtitle><date>2016-02</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>91</spage><epage>100</epage><pages>91-100</pages><eissn>1433-0458</eissn><abstract>Various different hearing systems are available for device-supported hearing rehabilitation of patients with mixed hearing loss. Using the recently introduced objective comparison criterion "maximum output" (i.e., the maximum output level of a hearing device), the indications for different hearing devices can be compared. This article reviews important terms such as gain, dynamic range, and maximum output level-all of which are relevant for the selection of a hearing device. The experimental part of this study compares all currently available hearing devices and determines the range of their indication with respect to the maximum bone-conduction hearing threshold. The maximum frequency-specific output levels reported in the literature for the Baha Cordelle 2, the Sophono Alpha 2, and the Bonebridge (measured at the skull simulator), as well as those of the Codacs and the Soundbridge (in-vivo measurements) are compared to the maximum output levels given in the datasheets of the BP110 Power, the Baha Cordelle 2, the Bonebridge, the Codacs, the Ponto Pro Power, and the Sophono Alpha 2. Using appropriate correction factors, the maximum dynamic range and thus the maximum indication based on the bone-conduction threshold was determined. In patients with mild sensorineural hearing loss, passive transcutaneous hearing or Bonebridge implants can achieve good audiological results. In the transition region to moderate hearing loss, percutaneous devices are applicable. Combined hearing loss with more pronounced sensorineural hearing loss is best treated with a Soundbridge or Codacs implant. In the latter case, the cochlear potential for speech recognition has to be explored and, where appropriate, cochlear implants considered as an alternative.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pmid>26601668</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00106-015-0087-5</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1433-0458
ispartof HNO, 2016-02, Vol.64 (2), p.91-100
issn 1433-0458
language ger
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1765109264
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Bone Conduction
Equipment Design
Equipment Failure Analysis
Hearing Aids - classification
Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - physiopathology
Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural - rehabilitation
Humans
Sound Spectrography - instrumentation
Sound Spectrography - methods
Technology Assessment, Biomedical
title Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: An audiological comparison of current hearing systems
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T14%3A18%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Device-based%20treatment%20of%20mixed%20hearing%20loss:%20An%20audiological%20comparison%20of%20current%20hearing%20systems&rft.jtitle=HNO&rft.au=Rahne,%20T&rft.date=2016-02&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=91&rft.epage=100&rft.pages=91-100&rft.eissn=1433-0458&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00106-015-0087-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1765109264%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1765109264&rft_id=info:pmid/26601668&rfr_iscdi=true