Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T11:08:59.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Active middle-ear implant fixation in an unusual place: clinical and audiological outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

J F Polanski ,
A D Soares ,
Z M Dos Santos  and
O L Mendonça Cruz
J F Polanski*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of São Paulo (‘UNIFESP’), Curitiba, Brazil Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil
A D Soares
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of São Paulo (‘UNIFESP’), Curitiba, Brazil
Z M Dos Santos
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of São Paulo (‘UNIFESP’), Curitiba, Brazil
O L Mendonça Cruz
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Federal University of São Paulo (‘UNIFESP’), Curitiba, Brazil
*
Address for correspondence: Dr José Fernando Polanski, Rua Des. Westphalen, 289–31, CEP: 80010-110, Curitiba, Brazil Fax: +55 41 3045 9400 E-mail: jfpolanski@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The Vibrant Soundbridge is an active middle-ear implant for hearing rehabilitation that is usually placed in the long process of the incus or round window. This study reports on the unusual implant attachment to the short process of the incus in a patient with ear malformation, and describes their audiological and clinical outcomes.

Methods:

Case report and literature review.

Results:

Audiological evaluation with the Vibrant Soundbridge implant showed a pure tone average of 31 dB. The speech test, at 65 dB HL, revealed correct recognition of 92 per cent of disyllabic words. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile showed high levels of satisfaction, hearing aid use and benefit.

Conclusion:

Fixation of the Vibrant Soundbridge implant on the short process of the incus is a feasible option, with good clinical and audiological outcomes. Coupling the floating mass transducer to the short process of the incus is a good surgical option, especially when the long process and the oval or round window are inaccessible.

Keywords

Hearing LossIncusHearing AidsMiddle Ear Implant
Type
Clinical Records
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 4 , April 2016 , pp. 404 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Melnick, M, Myrianthopoulus, NC, Paul, NW.External ear malformations: epidemiology, genetics, and natural history. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1979;15:i–ix,1–140Google Scholar
2Fisch, U, Cremers, CW, Lenarz, T, Weber, B, Babighian, G, Uziel, AS et al. Clinical experience with the Vibrant Soundbridge implant device. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:962–72Google Scholar
3Beltrame, AM, Martini, A, Prosser, S, Giarbini, N, Streitberger, C.Coupling the Vibrant Soundbridge to cochlea round window: auditory results in patients with mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:194–201CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Henseler, MA, Polanski, JF, Schlegel, C, Linder, T.Active middle ear implants in patients undergoing subtotal petrosectomy: long-term follow-up. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:437–41Google Scholar
5Schraven, SP, Dalhoff, E, Wildenstein, D, Hagen, R, Gummer, AW, Mlynski, R.Alternative fixation of an active middle ear implant at the short incus process. Audiol Neurootol 2014;19:1–11Google Scholar
6Jahrsdoerfer, RA, Yeakley, JW, Aguilar, EA, Cole, RR, Gray, LC.Grading system for the selection of patients with congenital aural atresia. Am J Otol 1992;13:6–12Google Scholar
7Gatehouse, S.Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing-aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 1999;10:80–103Google Scholar
8De la Cruz, A, Teufert, KB.Congenital aural atresia surgery: long-term results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:121–7Google Scholar
9Med-El. Candidacy for Middle Ear Implants. In: http://www.medel.com/uk/candidacy-middle-ear-implants/ [1 February 2016]Google Scholar
10Colletti, L, Carner, M, Mandala, M, Veronese, S, Colletti, V.The floating mass transducer for external auditory canal and middle ear malformations. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:108–15Google Scholar
11Frenzel, H, Hanke, F, Beltrame, AM, Steffen, A, Schönweiler, R, Wollenberg, B et al. Application of the Vibrant Soundbridge to unilateral osseous atresia cases. Laryngoscope 2009;119:67–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Clarós, P, Pujol M del, C.Active middle ear implants: Vibroplasty™ in children and adolescents with acquired or congenital middle ear disorders. Acta Otolaryngol 2013;133:612–19Google Scholar
13McKinnon, BJ, Dumon, T, Hagen, R, Lesinskas, E, Mlynski, R, Profant, M et al. Vibrant Soundbridge in aural atresia: does severity matter? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:1917–21Google Scholar