Bone anchored hearing aids in children: An update

Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness

“…In these cases, wearing a BAHA on the impaired side limits the head shadow effect and improves sound localization and speech discrimination [Vaneecloo et al, 2001;Bosman et al, 2003;Wazen et al, 2003]. This type of device has the disadvantage of cutaneous complications, low esthetic acceptance, and trauma to the abutment, especially in children [Doshi et al, 2012]. Other options to the BAHA in SSD are contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aids [Lin et al, 2006] and transcutaneous bone conduction systems with an active part fully implanted under the skin (Bonebridge ® , Med-El Inc., Innsbruck, Austria) [Riss et al, 2014].…”

Peri-implant bony overgrowth as a cause of revision surgery in auditory osseointegrated implantation

“…Soft tissue reactions are common, with a reported complication rate as high as 46.7% [7]. Pediatric patients, in particular, have demonstrated a greater predisposition toward adverse skin reaction than adults [1].…”

“…In today's practice, BAHS implantation is a therapeutic option for children aged 5 years or older with hearing loss that meets specific criteria, distinguishing these patients from those that may use conventional hearing aids. According to Doshi et al, the most common indications for implantation within this population include congenital aural atresia or microtia, chronic suppurative otitis media, persistent otitis media with effusion, chronic otitis externa, unilateral profound or mixed hearing loss, failure with conventional amplification, or trauma to the external ear [1].…”

“…Functionally, patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss are most likely to benefit from BAHS implantation [1]. Commonly reported adverse post-operative outcomes include inflammatory skin reactions, chronic drainage, implant-site infections, soft tissue overgrowth, and failure of osseointegration with resultant implant loss [2].…”

Hearing Outcomes of Atresia Surgery Versus Osseointegrated Bone Conduction Device in Patients With Congenital Aural Atresia

“…Although placement of an OBCD is a less technically challenging surgical procedure compared with atresiaplasty, it does not offer the benefits of a reconstructed ear canal or restored air conduction hearing. The traditional OBCD with its osseointegrated titanium implant is also cosmetically less appealing (9,10).…”