A Comparative Study of a Novel Adhesive Bone Conduction Device and Conventional Treatment Options for Conductive Hearing Loss

Abstract

Objective: To compare the audiological performance with the novel adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) to that with a passive bone conduction (BC) implant and to that with a bone conduction device (BCD) on a softband. Study Design: Prospective study in an acute setting, single-subject repeated measure in three situations: unaided, with conventional BCDs (passive implant or on softband), and with the ADHEAR. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: Ten subjects with conductive hearing loss were evaluated with the ADHEAR. Five of these were users of a passive BC implant (Baha Attract with Baha4); five received a BCD (Baha4) on a softband for test purposes. Intervention: Use of non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss. Main Outcome Measures: Air and bone conduction thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in quiet and noise were assessed. Results: Users of the passive BC implant received comparable hearing benefit with the ADHEAR. The mean aided thresholds in sound field measurements and speech understanding in quiet and noise were similar, when subjects were evaluated either with the ADHEAR or the passive BC implant. The audiological outcomes for the non-implanted group were also comparable between the ADHEAR and the BCD on softband. Conclusions: Based on our initial data, the ADHEAR seems to be a suitable alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for medical reasons cannot or do not want to undergo surgery for a passive BC implant.

One-Year Follow-Up in Children with Conductive Hearing Loss Using ADHEAR

“…This pressure may cause discomfort in long-term use [Neumann et al, 2019]. The novel adhesive BCD does not require pressure for the retention of the audio processor on the skin and delivered an average aided PTA4 of 29 dB HL in our study, which is in good comparability with recently published data [Dahm et al, 2019;Neumann et al, 2019;Skarzynski et al, 2019]. Osborne et al [2019] compared the new adhesive system to a softband solution in acute modality.…”

“…Favoreel et al [2020] described a PTA4 gain of 22 dB (13.0-29.9 dB) with the ADHEAR and 23 dB (13.6-32.9 dB) with the softband, with no differences found between the 2 devices when retesting 3 weeks later. Skarzynski et al [2019] compared the ADHEAR even to a transcutaneous passive implant (BAHA Attract) and obtained similar results: "In the passive BC implant group, aided sound field thresholds improved from an average PTA4 of 58 ± 6 to 33 ± 6 dB HL with the passive BC implant and to 32 ± 9 dB HL with the ADHEAR." Dahm et al [2018] assessed audiometric results in 12 patients with CHL arising from different etiologies.…”

Review of Bone Conduction Hearing Devices

“…These devices are subject to signal attenuation, especially at high frequencies, as the signal travels through soft tissue [7]. Depending on the attachment mechanism, the force required to hold the device in place and effectively transmit sound may limit wear time [48]. The same bone-anchored hearing processors used in the transcutaneous passive devices can be attached to a test band.…”

“…The audio processor connects to the adhesive and vibrates in response to sound, driving vibratory signal transmission through the skin and soft tissue to the underlying bone [31]. Since it is attached by an adhesive, pressure-induced discomfort is not a limitation to wear [48]. The ADHEAR is indicated for patients with unilateral or bilateral conductive hearing loss with a bone conduction HL better than or equal to 25 dB and for patients with single-sided deafness (Table 2; Figure 1) [31].…”

Experimentelle Evaluation des Adhear, eines neuen transkutanen Knochenleitungshörgeräts

“…Klinische Ergebnisse mit dem Adhear zeigen eine signifikante subjektive und objektive Verbesserung bei Patienten mit einem postoperativ tamponierten Ohr und damit induzierter Schallleitungsschwerhörigkeit [15] oder bei erworbener Schallleitungsschwerhörigkeit [16]. Es ist auch eine mit dem Baha am Stirnband vergleichbare Hörschwelle [17,18] und ein vergleichbares Richtungshören [19] beschrieben. Dies ist insofern erstaunlich, als dass ein höherer Anpressdruck eines Knochenleitungsstimulators eine effizientere Schallübertragung gewährleisten soll [20].…”