Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children

M. Urík, S. Šikolová, D. Hošnová, V. Kruntorád, M. Bartoš

. 2023 ; 8 (2) : 591-598. [pub] 20230223

Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23010067

OBJECTIVES: The young population requires early rehabilitation of their hearing loss for normal cognitive, auditive hence social development. All of which, in turn, may have an impact on quality of life (QoL). This study aims to evaluate QoL between two different bone conduction (BC) hearing devices: a noninvasive adhesive hearing aid (Adhear [ADH]) vs. an active transcutaneous implant (Bonebridge [BB]). METHODS: This study composed of 12 BB and 15 ADH users. Pure tone as well as speech in noise and quiet measurements were evaluated and compared to the Assessment in QoL questionnaire (AQoL-6d). RESULTS: Freefield results showed significant improvements for both devices compared to the unaided condition (p < .0001). Emphasis needs to be drawn on the different unaided level of conductive hearing loss as well as the indication range for both evaluated device groups: the ADH subjects exhibited a mean BC value of 9.50 ± 7.96 dB HL (the indication range up to 25 dB) and the BB subjects a mean of 23.33 ± 25.66 dB HL (the indication range up to 45 dB). Speech perception in quiet and in noise was significantly improved (p < .05; p < .001, respectively). QoL was significantly improved for both treatments (p < .05) but was not different among the devices, and the values were similar to their normal hearing, age, and sex-matched control group. High correlations were found between QoL utility scores and improved PTA4 in the aided condition (r2 = .8839 and .7810 for BB and ADH, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results show that both devices offer significant beneficial audiological rehabilitations with significantly increased QoL. However, the underlying condition and the unaided degree of hearing loss, hence the required higher stimulation must be the deciding factor when opting for a hearing device, and this should be independent of age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23010067
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230721095335.0
007      
ta
008      
230707s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1002/lio2.1030 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37090862
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Urík, Milan $u Department of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic $u Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Brno Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/000000022872185X
245    10
$a Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children / $c M. Urík, S. Šikolová, D. Hošnová, V. Kruntorád, M. Bartoš
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: The young population requires early rehabilitation of their hearing loss for normal cognitive, auditive hence social development. All of which, in turn, may have an impact on quality of life (QoL). This study aims to evaluate QoL between two different bone conduction (BC) hearing devices: a noninvasive adhesive hearing aid (Adhear [ADH]) vs. an active transcutaneous implant (Bonebridge [BB]). METHODS: This study composed of 12 BB and 15 ADH users. Pure tone as well as speech in noise and quiet measurements were evaluated and compared to the Assessment in QoL questionnaire (AQoL-6d). RESULTS: Freefield results showed significant improvements for both devices compared to the unaided condition (p < .0001). Emphasis needs to be drawn on the different unaided level of conductive hearing loss as well as the indication range for both evaluated device groups: the ADH subjects exhibited a mean BC value of 9.50 ± 7.96 dB HL (the indication range up to 25 dB) and the BB subjects a mean of 23.33 ± 25.66 dB HL (the indication range up to 45 dB). Speech perception in quiet and in noise was significantly improved (p < .05; p < .001, respectively). QoL was significantly improved for both treatments (p < .05) but was not different among the devices, and the values were similar to their normal hearing, age, and sex-matched control group. High correlations were found between QoL utility scores and improved PTA4 in the aided condition (r2 = .8839 and .7810 for BB and ADH, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results show that both devices offer significant beneficial audiological rehabilitations with significantly increased QoL. However, the underlying condition and the unaided degree of hearing loss, hence the required higher stimulation must be the deciding factor when opting for a hearing device, and this should be independent of age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Šikolová, Soňa $u Department of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic $u Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Brno Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hošnová, Dagmar $u Department of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic $u Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Brno Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kruntorád, Vít $u Department of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic $u Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Brno Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bartoš, Michal $u Department of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic $u Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Brno Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00211267 $t Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology $x 2378-8038 $g Roč. 8, č. 2 (2023), s. 591-598
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37090862 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230707 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230721095328 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1958621 $s 1196331
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 8 $c 2 $d 591-598 $e 20230223 $i 2378-8038 $m Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology $n Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol $x MED00211267
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230707

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...