TY  - JOUR
A1  - Sprinzl, Georg Mathias
A1  - Magele, Astrid
A1  - Schoerg, Philipp
A1  - Hagen, Rudolf
A1  - Rak, Kristen
A1  - Kurz, Anja
A1  - Van de Heyning, Paul
A1  - Calvino, Miryam
A1  - Lassaletta, Luis
A1  - Gavilán, Javier
T1  - A novel representation of audiological and subjective findings for acoustical, bone conduction and direct drive hearing solutions
JF  - Journal of Personalized Medicine
N2  - 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.
KW  - bone conduction implant
KW  - hearing aids
Y1  - 2023
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-311210
SN  - 2075-4426
VL  - 13
IS  - 3
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Topsakal, Vedat
A1  - Agrawal, Sumit
A1  - Atlas, Marcus
A1  - Baumgartner, Wolf-Dieter
A1  - Brown, Kevin
A1  - Bruce, Iain A.
A1  - Dazert, Stefan
A1  - Hagen, Rudolf
A1  - Lassaletta, Luis
A1  - Mlynski, Robert
A1  - Raine, Christopher H.
A1  - Rajan, Gunesh P.
A1  - Schmutzhard, Joachim
A1  - Sprinzl, Georg Mathias
A1  - Staecker, Hinrich
A1  - Usami, Shin-ichi
A1  - Van Rompaey, Vincent
A1  - Zernotti, Mario
A1  - Heyning, Paul van de
T1  - Minimally traumatic cochlear implant surgery: expert opinion in 2010 and 2020
JF  - Journal of Personalized Medicine
N2  - 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.
KW  - electric acoustic stimulation (EAS)
KW  - cochlear implants
KW  - atraumatic surgery
KW  - hearing preservation
KW  - partial deafness treatment
Y1  - 2022
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288196
SN  - 2075-4426
VL  - 12
IS  - 10
ER  -