A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss. | LitMetric

Objective: To compare the audiological performance with the novel adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) to that with a passive bone conduction (BC) implant and to that with a bone conduction device (BCD) on a softband.

Study Design: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject repeated measure in three situations: unaided, with conventional BCDs (passive implant or on softband), and with the ADHEAR.

Setting: Tertiary referral center.

Patients: Ten subjects with conductive hearing loss were evaluated with the ADHEAR. Five of these were users of a passive BC implant (Baha Attract with Baha4); five received a BCD (Baha4) on a softband for test purposes.

Intervention: Use of non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss.

Main Outcome Measures: Air and bone conduction thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in quiet and noise were assessed.

Results: Users of the passive BC implant received comparable hearing benefit with the ADHEAR. The mean aided thresholds in sound field measurements and speech understanding in quiet and noise were similar, when subjects were evaluated either with the ADHEAR or the passive BC implant. The audiological outcomes for the non-implanted group were also comparable between the ADHEAR and the BCD on softband.

Conclusions: Based on our initial data, the ADHEAR seems to be a suitable alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for medical reasons cannot or do not want to undergo surgery for a passive BC implant.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6641089PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002323DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bone conduction
24
passive implant
20
conductive hearing
16
adhesive bone
12
hearing loss
12
novel adhesive
8
conduction device
8
adhear passive
8
evaluated adhear
8
users passive
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!