{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04011461318051576, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02177650429799427, 'mean_word_length': 4.82, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Long-Term Stability and Functional Outcome of an Active Middle Ear Implant Regarding Different Coupling Sites.

OBJECTIVES
Indication and implantation of active middle ear implants (AMEI) are well established. Choice of the coupling site depends from the individual anatomical situation. Long-term stability of different coupling sites in terms of functional outcome and complications are rare and were investigated in this study.


DESIGN
Retrospective analysis of 41 consecutive patients (45 ears) with coupling of the AMEI at the incus, stapes, and round window. Analysis of preoperative, postoperative, and long-term results of pure-tone average, speech discrimination in quiet at 65 dB (German language Freiburg Monosyllabic Test) and noise (German language Oldenburger Sentence Test), rate of revision surgeries as well as explantations and the novel parameter patient years (py).


RESULTS
Mean of follow-up was 3.0 ± 1.7 years resulting in a total of 135.6 py. Bone conduction was stable in all patients pre- to postoperatively as well as preoperatively to the long-term. Round window patients had the broadest air-bone gap (31.4 ± 19.4 dB HL) benefitting the most from the AMEI (functional gain = 39.0 ± 12.8 dB HL). Regarding speech discrimination, incus patients performed the best both in quiet (77.7 ± 22.8%) and noise (3.4 ± 2.9 dB SNR). In terms of revision surgery and explantations, round window patients exhibited the highest rates (20%).


CONCLUSIONS
Regarding all coupling sites, satisfying long-term stability results and comparable complication rates were reported with best performance of coupling to the incus. Implementation of patient years might be a novel parameter for the comparison of revisions and explantations.