@article{SprinzlMageleSchoergetal.2023,
  author    = {Sprinzl, Georg Mathias and Magele, Astrid and Schoerg, Philipp and Hagen, Rudolf and Rak, Kristen and Kurz, Anja and Van de Heyning, Paul and Calvino, Miryam and Lassaletta, Luis and Gavil{\´a}n, Javier},
  title     = {A novel representation of audiological and subjective findings for acoustical, bone conduction and direct drive hearing solutions},
  series = {Journal of Personalized Medicine},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Journal of Personalized Medicine},
  number    = {3},
  issn      = {2075-4426},
  doi       = {10.3390/jpm13030462},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-311210},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Background: The benefit of hearing rehabilitation is often measured using audiological tests or subjective questionnaires/interviews. It is important to consider both aspects in order to evaluate the overall benefits. Currently, there is no standardized method for reporting combined audiological and patient reported subjective outcome measures in clinical practice. Therefore, this study focuses on showing the patient's audiological, as well as subjective outcomes in one graph using data from an existing study. Method: The present paper illustrated a graph presenting data on four quadrants with audiological and subjective findings. These quadrants represented speech comprehension in quiet (unaided vs. aided) as WRS\% at 65 dB SPL, speech recognition in noise (unaided vs. aided) as SRT dB SNR, sound field threshold (unaided vs. aided) as PTA\(_4\) in dB HL, wearing time and patient satisfaction questionnaire results. Results: As an example, the HEARRING graph in this paper represented audiological and subjective datasets on a single patient level or a cohort of patients for an active bone conduction hearing implant solution. The graph offered the option to follow the user's performance in time. Conclusion: The HEARRING graph allowed representation of a combination of audiological measures with patient reported outcomes in one single graph, indicating the overall benefit of the intervention. In addition, the correlation and consistency between some results (e.g., aided threshold and aided WRS) can be better visualized. Those users who lacked performance benefits on one or more parameters and called for further insight could be visually identified.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{TopsakalAgrawalAtlasetal.2022,
  author    = {Topsakal, Vedat and Agrawal, Sumit and Atlas, Marcus and Baumgartner, Wolf-Dieter and Brown, Kevin and Bruce, Iain A. and Dazert, Stefan and Hagen, Rudolf and Lassaletta, Luis and Mlynski, Robert and Raine, Christopher H. and Rajan, Gunesh P. and Schmutzhard, Joachim and Sprinzl, Georg Mathias and Staecker, Hinrich and Usami, Shin-ichi and Van Rompaey, Vincent and Zernotti, Mario and Heyning, Paul van de},
  title     = {Minimally traumatic cochlear implant surgery: expert opinion in 2010 and 2020},
  series = {Journal of Personalized Medicine},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Journal of Personalized Medicine},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {2075-4426},
  doi       = {10.3390/jpm12101551},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288196},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This study aimed to discover expert opinion on the surgical techniques and materials most likely to achieve maximum postoperative residual hearing preservation in cochlear implant (CI) surgery and to determine how these opinions have changed since 2010. A previously published questionnaire used in a study published in 2010 was adapted and expanded. The questionnaire was distributed to an international group of experienced CI surgeons. Present results were compared, via descriptive statistics, to those from the 2010 survey. Eighteen surgeons completed the questionnaire. Respondents clearly favored the following: round window insertion, slow array insertion, and the peri- and postoperative use of systematic antibiotics. Insertion depth was regarded as important, and electrode arrays less likely to induce trauma were preferred. The usefulness of dedicated soft-surgery training was also recognized. A lack of agreement was found on whether the middle ear cavity should be flushed with a non-aminoglycoside antibiotic solution or whether a sheath or insertion tube should be used to avoid contaminating the array with blood or bone dust. In conclusion, this paper demonstrates how beliefs about CI soft surgery have changed since 2010 and shows areas of current consensus and disagreement.},
  language  = {en}
}