Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 3/2006

01-03-2006 | Otology

Evaluation of the relation between audiometric and psychometric measures of hearing after tympanoplasty

Authors: Astrid G. W. Korsten-Meijer, Hero P. Wit, Frans W. J. Albers

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 3/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the relation between audiometric and psychometric measures after tympanoplasty from the perspective of preoperative selection of patients and postoperative assessment of the results of reconstructive middle ear surgery. Hearing (dis)ability was measured by means of pure-tone audiometry and a validated self-assessment questionnaire: the (modified) Amsterdam Inventory of Auditory Disability and Handicap (m)AIAD. Average hearing thresholds and (m)AIAD scores were evaluated for 80 patients, pre- and 12 months postoperatively. The average improvement of the air conduction threshold in the operated ear was 5.4 (±14.3) dB; the average improvement in the (m)AIAD score was 2.9 points (±12.1). Although not very strong, the audiometric improvement and increase in (m)AIAD score are significantly related. After the calculation of postoperatively measured mean scores on the (m)AIAD for different 10-dB intervals of postoperative hearing loss averaged over both ears, an interesting relation between the (m)AIAD score and hearing losses emerges. The (m)AIAD score is almost independent of hearing loss for postoperative hearing levels between 25 and 40 dB. Residual hearing loss has to become less than 25 dB before a smaller hearing loss corresponds with a higher (better) (m)AIAD score. For losses larger than 40 dB the (m)AIAD score clearly decreases with increasing hearing loss. Finally, even small residual hearing losses lead, on average, to (m)AIAD scores that are substantially lower than the score for normally hearing subjects. In general, the patient benefit seems related to the magnitude of improvement in the air-conduction thresholds, rather than to the achievement of a certain threshold level. In addition, even small residual hearing losses (less than 25 dB HL) still lead, on average, to (m)AIAD scores that are substantially lower than the scores for normally hearing subjects.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Meijer AGW, Albers FWJ, De Visscher AVM, Tenvergert EM (1998) Validation of hearing results in tympanoplasty: a preliminary report. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 52:313-316PubMed Meijer AGW, Albers FWJ, De Visscher AVM, Tenvergert EM (1998) Validation of hearing results in tympanoplasty: a preliminary report. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 52:313-316PubMed
2.
go back to reference De Bruin AJG, Tange RA, Dreschler WA (1999) Evaluation of second-ear stapedotomy with the Glasgow Benefit Plot. ORL J Relat Spec 61:92–97 De Bruin AJG, Tange RA, Dreschler WA (1999) Evaluation of second-ear stapedotomy with the Glasgow Benefit Plot. ORL J Relat Spec 61:92–97
3.
go back to reference Newman CW, Hug GA, Jacobson GP, Sandridge SA (1997) Perceived hearing handicap of patients with unilateral or mild hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 106:210–214PubMed Newman CW, Hug GA, Jacobson GP, Sandridge SA (1997) Perceived hearing handicap of patients with unilateral or mild hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 106:210–214PubMed
4.
go back to reference Toner JG, Smyth GDL, Kerr AG (1991) Realities in ossiculoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 105:529–533PubMed Toner JG, Smyth GDL, Kerr AG (1991) Realities in ossiculoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 105:529–533PubMed
5.
6.
go back to reference Browning GG (1996) Choice, advice and assessment of patients for ear surgery. J R Soc Med 89:571–576PubMed Browning GG (1996) Choice, advice and assessment of patients for ear surgery. J R Soc Med 89:571–576PubMed
7.
go back to reference Browning GG (1993) Editorial. The aims of middle ear surgery to improve hearing. J Laryngol Otol 107:1–3PubMed Browning GG (1993) Editorial. The aims of middle ear surgery to improve hearing. J Laryngol Otol 107:1–3PubMed
8.
go back to reference Smyth GDL (1992) Toynbee memorial lecture 1992: facts and fantasies in modern otology: the ear doctor’s dilemma. J Laryngol Otol 106:591–596PubMed Smyth GDL (1992) Toynbee memorial lecture 1992: facts and fantasies in modern otology: the ear doctor’s dilemma. J Laryngol Otol 106:591–596PubMed
9.
go back to reference Browning GG (1997) Do patients and surgeons agree? The Gordon Smyth memorial lecture. Clin Otolaryngol 22:485–496CrossRefPubMed Browning GG (1997) Do patients and surgeons agree? The Gordon Smyth memorial lecture. Clin Otolaryngol 22:485–496CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Porter MJ, Zeithoun H, Brookes GB (1995) The Glasgow Benefit Plot used to assess the effect of bilateral stapedectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 20:68–71PubMed Porter MJ, Zeithoun H, Brookes GB (1995) The Glasgow Benefit Plot used to assess the effect of bilateral stapedectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 20:68–71PubMed
11.
go back to reference Toner JG, Smyth GDL, Kerr AG (1991) Realities in ossiculoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 105:529–533PubMed Toner JG, Smyth GDL, Kerr AG (1991) Realities in ossiculoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 105:529–533PubMed
12.
go back to reference Kapur TR, Jayaramchandran S (1992) Long-term results of total ossicular chain reconstruction using autografts. J Laryngol Otol 106:688–691PubMed Kapur TR, Jayaramchandran S (1992) Long-term results of total ossicular chain reconstruction using autografts. J Laryngol Otol 106:688–691PubMed
13.
go back to reference Smyth GDL, Patterson CC (1985) Results of middle ear reconstruction: do patients and surgeons agree? Am J Otol 6:276–279PubMed Smyth GDL, Patterson CC (1985) Results of middle ear reconstruction: do patients and surgeons agree? Am J Otol 6:276–279PubMed
14.
go back to reference Browning GG, Gatehouse S, Swan IRC (1991) The Glasgow Benefit Plot: a new method for reporting benefits from middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope 101:180–185PubMed Browning GG, Gatehouse S, Swan IRC (1991) The Glasgow Benefit Plot: a new method for reporting benefits from middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope 101:180–185PubMed
15.
go back to reference Toner JG, Smith GDL (1993) Comparison of methods of evaluating hearing benefit of middle ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 107:4–5PubMed Toner JG, Smith GDL (1993) Comparison of methods of evaluating hearing benefit of middle ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 107:4–5PubMed
16.
go back to reference Browning GG (1993) Reporting the benefits from middle ear surgery using the Glasgow Benefit Plot. Am J Otol 14:135–140PubMed Browning GG (1993) Reporting the benefits from middle ear surgery using the Glasgow Benefit Plot. Am J Otol 14:135–140PubMed
17.
go back to reference Bruijn de AJG, Tange RA, Dreschler WA (2001) Efficacy of evaluation of audiometric results after stapes surgery in otosclerosis. Part 2. A method for reporting results from individual cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124:84-89CrossRefPubMed Bruijn de AJG, Tange RA, Dreschler WA (2001) Efficacy of evaluation of audiometric results after stapes surgery in otosclerosis. Part 2. A method for reporting results from individual cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124:84-89CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Gatehouse S (1990) Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects. Ear Hear 11 [Suppl]:57S–65S Gatehouse S (1990) Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects. Ear Hear 11 [Suppl]:57S–65S
19.
go back to reference Lutman ME, Robinson DW (1992) Quantification of hearing disability for medicolegal purposes based on self-rating. Br J Audiol 26:297–306PubMed Lutman ME, Robinson DW (1992) Quantification of hearing disability for medicolegal purposes based on self-rating. Br J Audiol 26:297–306PubMed
20.
go back to reference Lutman ME, Brown EJ, Coles RA (1987) Self-reported disability and handicap in the population in relation to pure-tone threshold, age, sex and types of hearing loss. Br J Audiol 21:45–48PubMed Lutman ME, Brown EJ, Coles RA (1987) Self-reported disability and handicap in the population in relation to pure-tone threshold, age, sex and types of hearing loss. Br J Audiol 21:45–48PubMed
21.
go back to reference Anderson G, Melin L, Lindberg P, Scott B (1995) Development of a short scale for self-assessment of experiences of hearing loss. Scand Audiol 24:147–154PubMed Anderson G, Melin L, Lindberg P, Scott B (1995) Development of a short scale for self-assessment of experiences of hearing loss. Scand Audiol 24:147–154PubMed
22.
go back to reference Schow RL, Gatehouse S (1990) Fundamental issues in self-assessment of hearing. Ear Hear 11 [Suppl]:6S–16S Schow RL, Gatehouse S (1990) Fundamental issues in self-assessment of hearing. Ear Hear 11 [Suppl]:6S–16S
23.
go back to reference Weinstein BE, Ventry IM (1983) Audiometric correlates of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. J Sp Hear Disord 48:379–384 Weinstein BE, Ventry IM (1983) Audiometric correlates of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. J Sp Hear Disord 48:379–384
24.
go back to reference Giolas TG, Owens E, Lamb SH, Schubert ED (1979) Hearing performance inventory. J Sp Hear Disord 169–195 Giolas TG, Owens E, Lamb SH, Schubert ED (1979) Hearing performance inventory. J Sp Hear Disord 169–195
25.
go back to reference Lutman L (1991) Hearing disability in the elderly. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) [Suppl] 476:239–248 Lutman L (1991) Hearing disability in the elderly. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) [Suppl] 476:239–248
26.
go back to reference Kramer SE, Kapteyn, TS, Festen JM, Tobi H (1995) Factors in subjective hearing disability. Audiology 34:311–320PubMed Kramer SE, Kapteyn, TS, Festen JM, Tobi H (1995) Factors in subjective hearing disability. Audiology 34:311–320PubMed
27.
go back to reference Dutt SN, Mc Dermott A, Burell SP, Cooper HR, Reid AP, Proops DW (in press) J Laryngol Otol Dutt SN, Mc Dermott A, Burell SP, Cooper HR, Reid AP, Proops DW (in press) J Laryngol Otol
28.
go back to reference Meijer AGW, Wit HP, Albers FWJ (2004) Relation between change of hearing and (modified) Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap score. Clin Otolaryngol 29:1–6CrossRefPubMed Meijer AGW, Wit HP, Albers FWJ (2004) Relation between change of hearing and (modified) Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap score. Clin Otolaryngol 29:1–6CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Demorest ME, Erdman, SA (1988) Retest stability of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Ear Hear 9:237–242PubMed Demorest ME, Erdman, SA (1988) Retest stability of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Ear Hear 9:237–242PubMed
30.
go back to reference Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA (1991) Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear Hear 12:355–357PubMed Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA (1991) Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear Hear 12:355–357PubMed
31.
go back to reference Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. (1986) Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. Ear Hear 7:295–259PubMed Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. (1986) Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. Ear Hear 7:295–259PubMed
32.
go back to reference Meijer AGW, Verheul J, Albers FWJ, Segenhout HM (2002) Cartilage interposition in ossiculoplasty with hydroxylapatite prostheses: a histopathologic study in the guinea pig. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 111:364-369PubMed Meijer AGW, Verheul J, Albers FWJ, Segenhout HM (2002) Cartilage interposition in ossiculoplasty with hydroxylapatite prostheses: a histopathologic study in the guinea pig. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 111:364-369PubMed
33.
go back to reference Meijer AGW, Westerlaken BO, Albers FWJ (1999) The Groningen Cartilage Cutting Device, a new instrument for tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 109:2025-2027CrossRefPubMed Meijer AGW, Westerlaken BO, Albers FWJ (1999) The Groningen Cartilage Cutting Device, a new instrument for tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 109:2025-2027CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Meijer AGW, Wit HP, TenVergert EM, Albers FWJ, Muller Kobold JP (2003). Reliability and validity of the (modified) Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap. Int J Audiol 42:220–226PubMed Meijer AGW, Wit HP, TenVergert EM, Albers FWJ, Muller Kobold JP (2003). Reliability and validity of the (modified) Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap. Int J Audiol 42:220–226PubMed
35.
go back to reference American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc (1995) Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:186-187PubMed American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc (1995) Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:186-187PubMed
36.
go back to reference Nia JN, Bance M (2001) Effects of varying unilateral conductive hearing loss on speech in noise discrimination: an experimental study with implications for surgical correction. Otol Neurotol 22:737–744CrossRefPubMed Nia JN, Bance M (2001) Effects of varying unilateral conductive hearing loss on speech in noise discrimination: an experimental study with implications for surgical correction. Otol Neurotol 22:737–744CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of the relation between audiometric and psychometric measures of hearing after tympanoplasty
Authors
Astrid G. W. Korsten-Meijer
Hero P. Wit
Frans W. J. Albers
Publication date
01-03-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 3/2006
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-005-0983-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2006

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 3/2006 Go to the issue