Abstract
Conclusions: The satisfaction rate of the subjects with an auditory implant appears strictly related to the resulting auditory improvement, and the surgical variables would play a prevailing role in respect to the esthetic factors.Objectives: To assess the rate of satisfaction in subjects who underwent the surgical application of an auditory device at a single Implanting Center Unit.Method: A series of validated questionnaires has been administered to subjects who underwent the surgical application of different auditory devices. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) have been used to compare the implanted situation with the hearing-aided one; a percutaneous bone conductive implant (pBCI) with an active middle ear implant (AMEI) on the round window in mixed hearing loss; and an invisible, fully-implantable device with a frankly and bulky semi-implantable device.Results: The mean GBI scores were higher in Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB)® and Bonebridge® subjects, without significant differences among the various devices. The mean VAS score increased for all the devices in comparison with the conventional hearing aid. The mean APHAB score was similarly better in the implanted condition as total and partial scores.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
