title: Round window stimulation for conductive and mixed hearing loss.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Assess surgical complications, postoperative residual hearing, and speech perception outcomes of placement of a middle ear implant on the round window in conductive and mixed hearing loss cases.
  
  
  METHODS
  Single-subject, repeated-measures design where each subject served as his or her own control.
  
  
  METHODS
  Tertiary referral medical systems.
  
  
  METHODS
  Eighteen subjects with either conductive or mixed hearing loss who could not benefit from conventional amplification were enrolled in a clinical trial investigating vibratory stimulation of the round window.
  
  
  METHODS
  The floating mass transducer (FMT) was positioned in the round window niche.
  
  
  METHODS
  Unaided residual hearing, and aided sound field thresholds and speech perception abilities were evaluated preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 6, and 10 months post-activation of the external speech processor.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Six subjects experienced complications that either required further medical management or resolved on their own. There was no difference in residual bone conduction thresholds or unaided word discrimination over time. All subjects experienced a significant improvement in aided speech perception abilities as compared to preoperative performance.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Subjects with conductive and mixed hearing loss with placement of the FMT in the round window niche experienced improved sound field thresholds and speech perception, without compromising residual hearing thresholds. Vibratory stimulation of the round window via a middle ear implant may be an appropriate treatment option for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss. Additional research is needed on the preferred placement of the FMT, improvement of functional gain, and methods to limit postoperative complications and need for revision surgery.
authors.affiliation: *Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A.; †Pittsburgh Ear Associates, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; and ‡Department of Audiology, UNC Health Care, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A.
authors.forename: Margaret T
authors.initials: MT
authors.lastname: Dillon
authors.forename: Rhonda S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Tubbs
authors.forename: Marcia C
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Adunka
authors.forename: English R
authors.initials: ER
authors.lastname: King
authors.forename: Todd A
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Hillman
authors.forename: Oliver F
authors.initials: OF
authors.lastname: Adunka
authors.forename: Douglas A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Craig A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Buchman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006309:Hearing; D046089:Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural / Q000601:surgery*; D006320:Hearing Tests; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009998:Ossicular Prosthesis / Q000009:adverse effects; D013506:Otologic Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D012405:Round Window, Ear / Q000601:surgery*; D013067:Speech Perception; D016896:Treatment Outcome