Evaluation of device satistifaction in patients used active middle ear implant

Objective: Hearing loss is a condition that negatively affects human life. The type and degree of hearing loss is important for the rehabilitation of the patients hearing function. Active middle ear implants are useful option in auditory rehabilitation in patients with external and middle ear problems, who cannot use the device and those who do not benefit from the hearing aid. During the use of an active middle ear implant, Life qulity of the patients change due to reasons related with device or patient. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the hearing aid satisfaction of individuals using active middle ear implants and to compare this result with audiologic results with and without devices. Material and Methods: Patients who were operated at the Health Sciences University Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital Otorhinolaryngology Clinic and who were using active middle ear implant were included in the study. Preoperative and postoperative pure tone averages and demographic data of the patients to be included in the study were recorded. In order to evaluate the device satisfaction of the patients, a shortened profile questionnaire (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB) was used. Results: Fifteen patients with active middle ear implant were included in the study. 46.7% (n = 8) of the patients were male and 46.7% (n = 7) were female. The mean age was 44 ± 13 years. The duration of use of the device after active middle ear implant operation was between 6 and 13 years. The mean duration was 9.13 years. There was no statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative bone conduction thresholds at 500,1000,2000 and 4000 Hz frequencies (Table) (p>0.05). Preoperative air conduction threshold and air bone gap at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000Hz frequencies were significantly higher at all frequencies than postoperative measurements (p<0.01). Functional gain was found to be 28 dB. In APHAB questionnaire, there was a significant difference between the total score results and EC, BN, RV subscales when using active middle ear implant and at the time of not using the implant the APHAB questionnaire total score, EC, BN and RV subscales (p<0.01). There was no significant difference in with or without active middle ear implant values in the AV subscale (p>0.05). IV Conclusion: In our study, device satisfaction was found to be high in patients using active middle ear implant in general. In addition, patients with active middle ear implants had satisfactory results in auditory gains. Active middle ear implants are not as widely used as conventional hearing aids or cochlear implantation. Therefore, large series of middle ear implants are very few. While the small number of patients in our study constitutes the study limitation, long-term results of our study makes the study valuable. Active middle ear implant is very useful in appropriate indications. In particular, good indication and long-term use of the device increases the patients compliance and satisfaction with the device.