ArticleActa otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale2024
Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction of Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge in congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss.
Article in Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive analysis of predictors and outcomes following Vibrant Soundbridge implantation - part 1 of a prospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels of Bonebridge (BB) and Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss (UCHL). Methods: The hearing effectiveness was measured using sound field hearing threshold (SFHT) and word recognition score (WRS). Long-term safety and subjective satisfaction levels were measured by questionnaires, including Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale-12 (SSQ-12) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Results: Both BB and VSB were effective in improving the hearing of patients with congenital UCHL. Four of the 20 patients discontinued wearing the device postoperatively, and no complications were reported by long-term users. Patients experienced an overall improvement in their hearing experience across most subscales of SSQ-12 and a lower hearing problem rate across most subscales of the APHAB after implantation. However, the 'quality of hearing' subscale in the SSQ-12 did not show any improvement, and the aversiveness subscale in the APHAB exhibited a relatively higher percentage of reported problems after BB or VSB implantation. No significant differences were observed in SFHT, WRS, SSQ-12, and APHAB between the two groups. Conclusions: Both BB and VSB are effective in improving the hearing of UCHL patients, with high subjective satisfaction and low complication rates in the long-term postoperative period, with no significant difference between the two devices. Follow-up device fitting is essential, especially to address increased device sound or noise after surgery, reduce non-usage rates and achieve higher subjective satisfaction levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.