Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2022 Feb;15(1):69-76. 10.21053/ceo.2020.01851.

Results of Active Middle Ear Implantation in Patients With Mixed Hearing Loss After Middle Ear Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study (the ROMEO Study)

• Song CI
• Cho HH
• Choi BY
• Choi JY
• Choi JW
• Choung YH
• Chung JW
• Chung WH
• Hong SH
• Kim Y
• Lee BD
• Lee IW
• Lee JD
• Lee JH
• Lee KY
• Moon IJ
• Moon IS
• Oh SH
• Park HJ
• Park SN
• Seo JW

• KMID: 2527114
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2020.01851

Abstract

Objectives
. This study was conducted to evaluate the user satisfaction, efficacy, and safety of round window (RW) vibroplasty using the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with persistent mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy.
Methods
. The study included 27 patients (mean age, 58.7 years; age range, 28–76 years; 11 men and 16 women) with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy from 15 tertiary referral centers in Korea. The VSB was implanted at the RW. The Korean translation of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire and the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction as the primary outcome. The secondary outcome measures were audiological test results and complication rates.
Results
. The mean scores for ease of communication (61.3% to 29.7% to 30.2%), reverberation (62.1% to 43.1% to 37.4%), and background noise (63.3% to 37.7% to 34.3%) subscales of the APHAB questionnaire significantly decreased after VSB surgery. The mean K-IOI-HA scores at 3 and 6 months after surgery were significantly higher than the mean preoperative score (18.6 to 27.2 to 28.1). The postoperative VSB-aided thresholds were significantly lower than the preoperative unaided and hearing aid (HA)-aided thresholds. There was no significant difference between preoperative unaided, preoperative HA-aided, and postoperative VSB-aided maximum phonetically balanced word-recognition scores. None of the 27 patients experienced a change in postoperative bone conduction pure tone average. One patient developed temporary facial palsy and two developed surgical wound infections.
Conclusion
. RW vibroplasty resulted in improved satisfaction and audiological test results in patients with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy, and the complication rate was tolerable.

Keyword

Active Middle Ear Implant; Mixed Hearing Loss; Round Window; Vibroplasty; Vibrant Soundbridge

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Scores on the Korean translation of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire, assessed preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. (A) Ease of communication subscale. (B) Reverberation subscale. (C) Background noise subscale. (D) Aversiveness subscale. Preop, preoperative; VSB, Vibrant Soundbridge; VSB 3 mo, VSB-aided thresholds at 3 months after surgery; VSB 6 mo, VSB-aided thresholds at 6 months after surgery.

• 

  Fig. 2. Scores on the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire assessed at three different time points: preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The K-IOI-HA questionnaire was completed before and 3 and 6 months after round window (RW) vibroplasty by 16 patients who used hearing aids before RW vibroplasty. HA, hearing aid; HA (preop), preoperative HA-aided thresholds; VSB, Vibrant Soundbridge; VSB 3 mo, VSB-aided thresholds at 3 months after surgery; VSB 6 mo, VSB-aided thresholds at 6 months after surgery.

• 

  Fig. 3. Pure tone average measured preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively. There was no significant difference between mean preoperative (Preop BC) and postoperative bone conduction thresholds (Postop BC 1 mo) (P=0.444). A comparison between preoperative (Preop AC) and 1-month postoperative air conduction thresholds (Postop AC 1 mo) revealed no significant difference (P=0.232). AC, air conduction; BC, bone conduction.

• 

  Fig. 4. Mean sound field thresholds for ears treated with round window vibroplasty, assessed using warble tones at frequencies between 250 Hz and 4k Hz. (A) Comparison between preoperative unaided thresholds and postoperative VSB-aided thresholds (n=27). (B) Comparison between preoperative HA-aided thresholds and postoperative VSB-aided thresholds (n=16). AC, air conduction; Preop AC, preoperative unaided thresholds; VSB, Vibrant Soundbridge; VSB 1 mo, VSB-aided thresholds at 1 month after surgery; VSB 3 mo, VSB-aided thresholds at 3 months after surgery; VSB 6 mo, VSB-aided thresholds at 6 months after surgery; HA, hearing aids; HA (preop), preoperative HA-aided thresholds.

Reference

1. Cristobal F, Gomez-Ullate R, Cristobal I, Arcocha A, Arroyo R. Hearing results in the second stage of open mastoidectomy: a comparison of the different techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000; May. 122(5):748–51.

2. Galm T, Martin TP, Raut V. Open and closed cavity mastoid operations: comparing early hearing results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; Jan. 270(1):77–80.

3. Cox MD, Trinidade A, Russell JS, Dornhoffer JL. Long-term hearing results after ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2017; Apr. 38(4):510–5.

4. Geerse S, Bost TJ, Allagul S, de Wolf MJ, Ebbens FA, van Spronsen E. Hearing and hearing rehabilitation after obliteration of troublesome mastoid cavities. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; Dec. 277(12):3307–13.

5. Gluth MB, Friedman AB, Atcherson SR, Dornhoffer JL. Hearing aid tolerance after revision and obliteration of canal wall down mastoidectomy cavities. Otol Neurotol. 2013; Jun. 34(4):711–4.

6. Maw J. The Vibrant Soundbridge: a global overview. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2019; Apr. 52(2):285–95.

7. Zahnert T, Mlynski R, Lowenheim H, Beutner D, Hagen R, Ernst A, et al. Long-term outcomes of vibroplasty coupler implantations to treat mixed/conductive hearing loss. Audiol Neurootol. 2018; Mar. 23(6):316–25.

8. Butler CL, Thavaneswaran P, Lee IH. Efficacy of the active middle-ear implant in patients with sensorineural hearing loss. J Laryngol Otol. 2013; Jul. 127 Suppl 2:S8–16.

9. Lee JM, Jung J, Moon IS, Kim SH, Choi JY. Benefits of active middle ear implants in mixed hearing loss: stapes versus round window. Laryngoscope. 2017; Jun. 127(6):1435–41.

10. Ernst A, Todt I, Wagner J. Safety and effectiveness of the Vibrant Soundbridge in treating conductive and mixed hearing loss: a systematic review. Laryngoscope. 2016; Jun. 126(6):1451–7.

11. Chu H, Cho YS, Park SN, Byun JY, Shin JE, Han GC, et al. Standardization for a Korean adaptation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids: study of validity and reliability. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2012; Jan. 55(1):20–5.

12. Lim HJ, Park MK, Cho YS, Han GC, Choi JW, An YH, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2017; Apr. 60(4):164–73.

13. Kumakawa K, Kanzaki S, Usami S, Iwasaki S, Yamanaka N, Doi K, et al. Multicenter clinical study of Vibrant Soundbridge in Japan: analysis of subjective questionnaires. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2015; Nov. 118(11):1309–18.

14. Dornhoffer JR, Meyer TA, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. Assessment of hearing aid benefit using patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Audiol Neurootol. 2020; Jul. 25(4):215–23.

15. Atas A, Tutar H, Gunduz B, Bayazıt YA. Vibrant SoundBridge application to middle ear windows versus conventional hearing aids: a comparative study based on international outcome inventory for hearing aids. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; Jan. 271(1):35–40.

16. Iwasaki S, Usami SI, Takahashi H, Kanda Y, Tono T, Doi K, et al. Round Window application of an active middle ear implant: a comparison with hearing aid usage in Japan. Otol Neurotol. 2017; Jul. 38(6):e145–51.

17. Brkic FF, Riss D, Auinger A, Zoerner B, Arnoldner C, Baumgartner WD, et al. Long-term outcome of hearing rehabilitation with an active middle ear implant. Laryngoscope. 2019; Feb. 129(2):477–81.

18. Schwab B, Salcher RB, Maier H, Kontorinis G. Oval window membrane vibroplasty for direct acoustic cochlear stimulation: treating severe mixed hearing loss in challenging middle ears. Otol Neurotol. 2012; Jul. 33(5):804–9.

19. Bernardeschi D, Hoffman C, Benchaa T, Labassi S, Beliaeff M, Sterkers O, et al. Functional results of Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear implants in conductive and mixed hearing losses. Audiol Neurootol. 2011; Sep. 16(6):381–7.

20. Truy E, Philibert B, Vesson JF, Labassi S, Collet L. Vibrant Soundbridge versus conventional hearing aid in sensorineural high-frequency hearing loss: a prospective study. Otol Neurotol. 2008; Aug. 29(5):684–7.

21. Labassi S, Beliaeff M, Pean V, Van de Heyning P. The Vibrant Soundbridge^® middle ear implant: a historical overview. Cochlear Implants Int. 2017; Nov. 18(6):314–23.

22. Khan A, Hillman T, Chen D. Vibrant Soundbridge rehabilitation of sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2014; Dec. 47(6):927–39.

23. Zwartenkot JW, Mulder JJ, Snik AF, Cremers CW, Mylanus EA. Active middle ear implantation: long-term medical and technical follow-up, implant survival, and complications. Otol Neurotol. 2016; Jun. 37(5):513–9.

24. Barbara M, Volpini L, Covelli E, Romeo M, Filippi C, Monini S. Complications after round window vibroplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; Jun. 276(6):1601–5.

25. Schmuziger N, Schimmann F, aWengen D, Patscheke J, Probst R. Long-term assessment after implantation of the Vibrant Soundbridge device. Otol Neurotol. 2006; Feb. 27(2):183–8.