ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Audiological and Subjective Benefits in a Child with Microtia and Atresia After Sequential Bilateral Implantation with Active Bone Conduction Devices: A Case Study.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Congenital microtia-atresia in Iran: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Bonebridge Implantation in 10 Patients with Rare Genetic Syndromes and Difficult Anatomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Use of Bonebridge Implant in a Child with Congenital Cholesteatoma: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith bilateral hearing loss, the main problems for the patient are speech understanding in noise and, especially in asymmetrical hearing loss, an inability to correctly localize sound sources. There are multiple methods of treatment and rehabilitation for people with conductive hearing loss, and one of them is to use an active bone conduction implant. This case study is designed to evaluate the auditory benefits and sound localization accuracy with active bilateral bone conduction implants-in comparison to unilateral ones-in a patient with congenital bilateral conductive hearing loss caused by a congenital malformation. We assess subjective and audiological benefits (functional, directional hearing, speech comprehension in quiet and noise). CASE REPORT: This study describes the results in a 15-year-old patient with bilateral congenital malformation of the outer ears and associated conductive hearing loss who was treated with two Bonebridge active bone conduction implants. Speech recognition ability, hearing thresholds, and sound localization were tested under three conditions: unaided, unilateral on the right-side, and bilateral on both sides. The patient filled in an Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaire (APHAB) to evaluate limitations in daily life caused by hearing impairment. The results show an improvement in free-field hearing thresholds and the ability to discriminate speech, both in quiet and in noise after implantation. Subjectively, the patient had significantly fewer problems with two implants than with one (or with no implant) in terms of hearing in everyday situations.
conclusionsUnilateral use of the Bonebridge device in a patient with congenital bilateral conductive hearing loss did not provide full benefits. However, bilateral implantation improved speech understanding in noise and sound localization.
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.