| 1. |
- Edfeldt, Lennart, et al.
(author)
-
Evaluation of cost-utility in middle ear implantation in the 'Nordic School' : a multicenter study in Sweden and Norway
- 2014
-
In: Acta Oto-Laryngologica. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0001-6489 .- 1651-2251. ; 134:1, s. 19-25
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Conclusion: Hearing restoration using an active middle ear implant (AMEI) is a highly cost-effective treatment for a selected group of patients with no other possibilities for auditory rehabilitation. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-utility of using an AMEI for hearing rehabilitation. Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-subject repeated study in six tertiary referral centers. Twenty-four patients with sensorineural (SNHL), conductive (CHL), and mixed hearing loss (MHL) were implanted with the AMEI Vibrant Soundbridge (R) (VSB) for medical reasons. All patients were previously rehabilitated with conventional hearing aids. Multiple validated quality of life patient questionnaires, Health Utilities Index (HUI 2 and 3), and Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) were used to determine the utility gain and quality adjusted life years (QALY). Directly related treatment costs for the implantation were calculated and related to utility gain and QALY. Results: The cost/QALY for patients with SNHL was estimated at (sic)7260/QALY, and for patients with C/MHL at (sic)12 503/QALY.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fredén Jansson, Karl-Johan, 1988, et al.
(author)
-
Bone Conduction Stimulated VEMP Using the B250 Transducer
- 2021
-
In: Medical Devices: Evidence and Research. - 1179-1470. ; 14, s. 225-237
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Bone conduction (BC) stimulation is rarely used for clinical testing of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) due to the limitations of conventional stimulation alternatives. The aim of this study is to compare VEMP using the new B250 transducer with the Minishaker and air conduction (AC) stimulation. Methods: Thirty normal subjects between 20 and 37 years old and equal gender distribution were recruited, 15 for ocular VEMP and 15 for cervical VEMP. Four stimulation conditions were compared: B250 on the mastoid (FM); Minishaker and B250 on the forehead (FZ); and AC stimulation using an insert earphone. Results: It was found that B250 at FM required a statistically significant lower hearing level than with AC stimulation, in average 41 dB and 35 dB lower for ocular VEMP and cervical VEMP, respectively, but gave longer n10 (1.1 ms) and n23 (1.6 ms). No statistical difference was found between B250 at FM and Minishaker at FZ. Conclusion: VEMP stimulated with B250 at FM gave similar response as the Minishaker at FZ and for a much lower hearing level than AC stimulation using insert earphones.
|
|
| 3. |
- Håkansson, Bo, 1953, et al.
(author)
-
VEMP using a new low-frequency bone conduction transducer
- 2018
-
In: Medical Devices: Evidence and Research. - 1179-1470. ; 11, s. 301-312
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: A new prototype bone conduction (BC) transducer B250, with an emphasized low-frequency response, is evaluated in vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) investigations. The aim was to compare cervical (cVEMP) and ocular (oVEMP) responses using tone bursts at 250 and 500 Hz with BC stimulation using the B250 and the conventional B81 transducer and by using air conduction (AC) stimulation. Methods: Three normal subjects were investigated in a pilot study. BC stimulation was applied to the mastoids in cVEMP, and both mastoid and forehead in oVEMP investigations. Results: BC stimulation was found to reach VEMP thresholds at considerably lower hearing levels than in AC stimulation (30-40 dB lower oVEMP threshold at 250 Hz). Three or more cVEMP and oVEMP responses at consecutive 5 dB increasing mastoid stimulation levels were only obtained in all subjects using the B250 transducer at 250 Hz. Similar BC thresholds were obtained for both ipsilateral and contralateral mastoid stimulation. Forehead stimulation, if needed, may require a more powerful vibration output. Conclusion: Viable VEMP responses can be obtained at a considerably lower hearing level with BC stimulation than by AC stimulation. The cVEMP and oVEMP responses were similar when measured on one side and with the B250 attached to both ipsilateral and contralateral mastoids.
|
|
