-
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
Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
od 2016
PubMed Central
od 2016
Europe PubMed Central
od 2016
ProQuest Central
od 2016-02-01
Open Access Digital Library
od 2016-02-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2016-02-01
Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles
od 2016
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2016
PubMed
37090862
DOI
10.1002/lio2.1030
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
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.
Department of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Brno Czech Republic
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