Round window VIBROPLASTY for patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss: A comparative study of middle ear disease and congenital aural atresia

Keiji Matsuda, Tetsuya Tono, Sho Kanzaki, Kozo Kumakawa, Shinichi Usami, Satoshi Iwasaki, Noboru Yamanaka, Katsumi Doi, Yasushi Naito, Kiyofumi Gyo, Haruo Takahashi, Yukihiko Kanda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE : To study and compare the objective benefits of VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE VSB in patients with mixed and conductive hearing loss by disease category. METHODS : Two different groups were evaluated : 1 twenty cases of middle ear disease and 2 three patients with congenital aural atresia. Preoperative and postoperative aided and unaided free field audiometry and speech recognition in quiet and noise were used to assess the hearing outcome. RESULTS : There was no change in residual hearing before and after surgery. Average functional gain including speech range from 1000 Hz to 4000 Hz was 35 dB in the middle ear disease group, and 50 dB in the congenital aural atresia group. The speech recognition score under quiet and noisy conditions improved significantly in both groups. Reoperations were performed to correct the gap between the FMT and round window membrane in two cases in the middle ear disease group. Conclusion : VSB operation with a round window vibroplasty is a safe and effective procedure for any disease with mixed and conductive hearing loss.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)37-45
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Otolaryngology of Japan
Volume119
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Keywords

  • Congenital aural atresia
  • Middle ear disease
  • Mixed or conductive hearing loss
  • Round window vibroplasty
  • Vsb

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Round window VIBROPLASTY for patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss: A comparative study of middle ear disease and congenital aural atresia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this