scholarly journals New Considerations for a Totally Implantable Active Middle Ear Implant

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Shohet ◽  
Jacqueline Bibee
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Transfer Functions ◽  
Distinct Advantage ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Direct Drive ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Active Lifestyles

Totally implantable active middle ear implants (AMEI) provide full-time hearing amplification to those with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss. While technology in conventional hearing aids (CHA) has advanced greatly, limitations remain for people with active lifestyles, limited vision or dexterity, and hearing aid fit issues. Furthermore, direct-drive properties of AMEI are thought to provide those with inefficient middle ear transfer functions a distinct advantage in delivering prescribed sound to the cochlea, ultimately improving speech understanding with less distortion. AMEI safety, stability, and efficacy outcomes are well documented and fitting strategies continue to improve. Recent studies show how simple aided speech testing can help predict whether a patient struggling with CHA may instead benefit from an AMEI. Totally implantable AMEI continue to be a viable option for patients who cannot or will not utilize traditional hearing aids.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 127 (S2) ◽  
pp. S8-S16 ◽  
Author(s):  
C L Butler ◽  
P Thavaneswaran ◽  
I H Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Better Than

AbstractIntroduction: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.

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (4) ◽  
pp. 340-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
V A Savaş ◽  
B Gündüz ◽  
R Karamert ◽  
R Cevizci ◽  
M Düzlü ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Patient Acceptance ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Glasgow Benefit Inventory ◽  
Middle Ear Implants

AbstractObjective: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.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compatibility of a New Generation of Active Middle Ear Implant

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. e222-e227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Schnabl ◽  
Astrid Wolf-Magele ◽  
Stefan Marcel Pok ◽  
Lena Hirtler ◽  
Gertraud Heinz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
New Generation

scholarly journals Comparative study of efficiency and characteristics of FMT and DRT installed in human cadavers for round-window stimulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Ho Shin ◽  
Jong Hoon Kim ◽  
Peter Gottlieb ◽  
Yona Vaisbuch ◽  
Sunil Puria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Round Window ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Acoustic Hearing ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Human Cadavers ◽  
Limited Frequency ◽  
Output Characteristics ◽  
Temporal Bones

AbstractAcoustic hearing aids generate amplified sound in the ear canal, and they are the standard of care for patients with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. However, because of their limited frequency bandwidth, gain, and feedback, there is substantial room for improvement. Active middle ear implants, which directly vibrate the middle ear and cochlea, are an alternative approach to conventional acoustic hearing aids. They provide an opportunity to improve sound quality and speech understanding with amplification rehabilitation. For floating-mass type and direct-rod type (DRT) middle ear transducers, a differential floating-mass transducer (DFMT) and a tri-coil bellows transducer (TCBT), respectively, were fabricated to measure the output characteristics in four human temporal bones. Both were fabricated to have similar output forces per unit input and were placed in four human temporal bones to measure their output performances. The TCBT resulted in higher output than did the DFMT throughout the audible frequency range, and the output was more prominent at lower frequency ranges. In this study, we showed that DRT was a more effective method for round window stimulation. Because of its frequency characteristics and vibration efficiency, this implantation method can be utilized as a driving solution for middle ear implants.

scholarly journals Long-Term Outcome of Hearing Rehabilitation With An Active Middle Ear Implant

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faris F. Brkic ◽  
Dominik Riss ◽  
Alice Auinger ◽  
Barbara Zoerner ◽  
Christoph Arnoldner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ear ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implant

Round window application of an active middle ear implant (AMEI) system in congenital oval window atresia

2015 ◽  
Vol 136 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shouqin Zhao ◽  
Shusheng Gong ◽  
Demin Han ◽  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Xiaobo Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ear ◽  
Round Window ◽  
Oval Window ◽  
Active Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Middle Ear Implant
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document