Is complex signal processing for bone conduction hearing aids useful?

OBJECTIVES To establish whether complex signal processing is beneficial for users of bone anchored hearing aids. METHODS Review and analysis of two studies from our own group, each comparing a speech processor with basic digital signal processing (either Baha Divino or Baha Intenso) and a processor with complex digital signal processing (either Baha BP100 or Baha BP110 power). The main differences between basic and complex signal processing are the number of audiologist accessible frequency channels and the availability and complexity of the directional multi-microphone noise reduction and loudness compression systems. RESULTS Both studies show a small, statistically non-significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet with the complex digital signal processing. The average improvement for speech in noise is +0.9 dB, if speech and noise are emitted both from the front of the listener. If noise is emitted from the rear and speech from the front of the listener, the advantage of the devices with complex digital signal processing as opposed to those with basic signal processing increases, on average, to +3.2 dB (range +2.3 … +5.1 dB, p ≤ 0.0032). DISCUSSION Complex digital signal processing does indeed improve speech understanding, especially in noise coming from the rear. This finding has been supported by another study, which has been published recently by a different research group. CONCLUSIONS When compared to basic digital signal processing, complex digital signal processing can increase speech understanding of users of bone anchored hearing aids. The benefit is most significant for speech understanding in noise.

What is the frequency of nerve injuries associated with acetabular fractures?

BACKGROUND Acetabular fractures and surgical interventions used to treat them can result in nerve injuries. To date, only small case studies have tried to explore the frequency of nerve injuries and their association with patient and treatment characteristics. High-quality data on the risk of traumatic and iatrogenic nerve lesions and their epidemiology in relation to different fracture types and surgical approaches are lacking. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES The purpose of this study was to determine (1) the proportion of patients who develop nerve injuries after acetabular fracture; (2) which fracture type(s) are associated with increased nerve injury risk; and (3) which surgical approach was associated with the highest proportion of patients developing nerve injuries using data from the German Pelvic Trauma Registry. Two secondary aims were (4) to assess hospital volume-nerve-injury relationship; and (5) internal data validity. METHODS Between March 2001 and June 2012, 2236 patients with acetabular fractures were entered into a prospectively maintained registry from 29 hospitals; of those, 2073 (92.7%) had complete records on the endpoints of interest in this retrospective study and were analyzed. The neurological status in these patients was captured at their admission and at the discharge. A total of 1395 of 2073 (67%) patients underwent surgery, and the proportions of intervention-related and other hospital-acquired nerve injuries were obtained. Overall proportions of patients developing nerve injuries, risk based on fracture type, and risk of surgical approach type were analyzed. RESULTS The proportion of patients being diagnosed with nerve injuries at hospital admission was 4% (76 of 2073) and at discharge 7% (134 or 2073). Patients with fractures of the "posterior wall" (relative risk [RR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.8; p=0.001), "posterior column and posterior wall" (RR, 2.9; CI, 1.6-5.0; p=0.002), and "transverse+posterior wall" fracture (RR, 2.1; CI, 1.3-3.5; p=0.010) were more likely to have nerve injuries at hospital discharge. The proportion of patients with intervention-related nerve injuries and that of patients with other hospital-acquired nerve injuries was 2% (24 of 1395 and 46 of 2073, respectively). They both were associated with the Kocher-Langenbeck approach (RR, 3.0; CI, 1.4-6.2; p=0.006; and RR, 2.4; CI, 1.4-4.3; p=0.004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Acetabular fractures with the involvement of posterior wall were most commonly accompanied with nerve injuries. The data suggest also that Kocher-Langenbeck approach to the pelvic ring is associated with a higher risk of perioperative nerve injuries. Trauma surgeons should be aware of common nerve injuries, particularly in posterior wall fractures. The results of the study should help provide patients with more exact information on the risk of perioperative nerve injuries in acetabular fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical validity of the nerve root sedimentation sign in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The nerve root sedimentation sign in transverse magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to discriminate well between selected patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the performance of this new test, when used in a broader patient population, is not yet known. PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical performance of the nerve root sedimentation sign in detecting central LSS above L5 and to determine its potential significance for treatment decisions. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE One hundred eighteen consecutive patients with suspected LSS (52% women, median age 62 years) with a median follow-up of 24 months. OUTCOME MEASURES Oswestry disability index (ODI) and back and leg pain relief. METHODS We performed a clinical test validation study to assess the clinical performance of the sign by measuring its association with health outcomes. Subjects were patients referred to our orthopedic spine unit from 2004 to 2007 before the sign had been described. Based on clinical and radiological diagnostics, patients had been treated with decompression surgery or nonsurgical treatment. Changes in the ODI and pain from baseline to 24-month follow-up were compared between sedimentation sign positives and negatives in both treatment groups. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients underwent surgery. Average baseline ODI in the surgical group was 54.7%, and the sign was positive in 39 patients (mean ODI improvement 29.0 points) and negative in 30 (ODI improvement 28.4), with no statistically significant difference in ODI and pain improvement between groups. In the 49 patients of the nonsurgical group, mean baseline ODI was 42.4%; the sign was positive in 18 (ODI improvement 0.6) and negative in 31 (ODI improvement 17.7). A positive sign was associated with a smaller ODI and back pain improvement than negative signs (both p<.01 on t test). CONCLUSIONS In patients commonly treated with decompression surgery, the sedimentation sign does not appear to predict surgical outcome. In nonsurgically treated patients, a positive sign is associated with more limited improvement. In these cases, surgery might be effective, but this needs investigation in prospective randomized trials (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTRN12610000567022).