Patient-Reported Outcomes in Middle Ear and Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants.

Autor: E M Jones S; Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom., Roplekar-Bance R; Department of Otolaryngology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom., Green R; Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom., Rae C; Department of Audiology, King's Cross Hospital, Clepington Road, Dundee, United Kingdom., Ferguson A; Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom., Spielmann PM; Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: The journal of international advanced otology [J Int Adv Otol] 2021 Sep; Vol. 17 (5), pp. 405-411.
DOI: 10.5152/iao.2021.21077
Abstrakt: Objective: This study used questionnaires to examine the patient-reported satisfaction with 2 hearing implant devices to determine the level of overall satisfaction with the devices, which, if any, factors predicted good or poor perceived outcomes, or whether there were any specific aspects of the devices where dissatisfaction was apparent.
Methods: A post-treatment questionnaire survey of 39 adult patients who had received a Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) or Bonebridge (BB) hearing implant, with at least 3 months of follow-up, was conducted using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Hearing Device Satisfaction Scale (HDSS). Satisfaction scores were compared to pre- and post-operative audiologic outcomes. The correlation between GBI and HDSS scores was also examined.
Results: A total of 28 of the 39 patients (72%) responded: 13 with a BB and 15 with a VSB at a mean of 13 months after implantation. The overall mean total GBI score was 30, with no significant differences across the groups. The responders generally reported that they were "satisfied" across most domains of the HDSS. In the study, 25 of the 28 responders were largely satisfied with their devices but 3 respondents were not. Two were known non-users, while one used the device but did not gain the benefit expected. It is instructive to note that all of these dissatisfied recipients were close to the manufacturer recommended limits for implantation of their respective devices at the time of surgery. Certain themes were identified within the patients' responses, indicating common aspects where satisfaction was poorer.
Conclusion: This series of 28 implant recipients demonstrates high levels of satisfaction with implantable hearing devices across 2 different validated questionnaires. Implant teams could exercise caution and manage patient expectations if the patients are close to the recommended limits of a particular device.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: