Bone conduction implants – a rapidly developing field

Edmiston, Rachel; Aggarwal, Rohini; Green, K M J

doi:10.1017/s0022215115002042

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bone anchored hearing systems (BAHS) are an established method for the treatment of conductive and mixed hearing loss [ 1 – 3 ] and, more recently, also for the treatment of single sided sensorineural deafness [ 4 – 7 ]. BAHS consist of a skin penetrating abutment mounted on an osseointegrated titanium implant located behind the ear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Speech Understanding and Sound Localization with a New Nonimplantable Wearing Option for Baha

Gawliczek

Wimmer

Munzinger

et al. 2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To measure the audiological benefit of the Baha SoundArc, a recently introduced nonimplantable wearing option for bone conduction sound processor, and to compare it with the known softband wearing option in subjects with normal cochlear function and a purely conductive bilateral hearing loss. Methods Both ears of 15 normal hearing subjects were occluded for the time of the measurement, yielding an average unaided threshold of 49 dB HL (0.5 – 4 kHz). Soundfield thresholds, speech understanding in quiet and in noise, and sound localization were measured in unaided conditions and with 1 or 2 Baha 5 sound processors mounted on either a softband or a SoundArc device. Results Soundfield thresholds and speech reception thresholds were improved by 19.5 to 24.8 dB (p<.001), when compared to the unaided condition. Speech reception thresholds in noise were improved by 3.7 to 4.7 dB (p<.001). Using 2 sound processors rather than one improved speech understanding in noise for speech from the direction of the 2nd device and sound localization error by 23° to 28°. No statistically significant difference was found between the SoundArc and the softband wearing options in any of the tests. Conclusions Bone conduction sound processor mounted on a SoundArc or on a softband resulted in considerable improvements in hearing and speech understanding in subjects with a simulated, purely conductive, and bilateral hearing loss. No significant difference between the 2 wearing options was found. Using 2 sound processors improves sound localization and speech understanding in noise in certain spatial settings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The audiological benefits of BAHS are well documented and the devices are widely used [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 ]. Nevertheless, at least 2 drawbacks remain: the need for a surgical intervention and the skin penetrating abutment, with a tendency to low-grade infections around the implant [ 10 , 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech Understanding and Sound Localization with a New Nonimplantable Wearing Option for Baha

Gawliczek

Wimmer

Munzinger

et al. 2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The principle of bone conduction has been applied for centuries. Today, bone conduction devices are a growing and dynamic field ( Edmiston, Aggarwal, & Green, 2015 ; Reinfeldt, Hakansson, Taghavi, & Eeg-Olofsson, 2015 ). Modern external devices can be included in glasses or rely on transmission via the teeth ( Miller, 2010 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, two new principles have emerged for bone conduction devices and have been labeled as active and passive transcutaneous ( Edmiston et al., 2015 ; Reinfeldt et al., 2015 ). Passive transcutaneous bone conduction is an advancement of the percutaneous device and relies on an osseointegrated post that is covered by intact skin.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prediction of Speech Recognition in Noise With a Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing System by External Bone Conduction Stimulation With Headband

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction devices are treatment options for conductive and mixed hearing loss (CHL/MHL). For counseling of patients, realistic simulation of the functional result is desirable. This study compared speech recognition in noise with a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device to external stimulation with a bone conduction device fixed by a headband. Eight German-language adult patients were enrolled after a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device (Bonebridge, Med-El) was implanted and fitted. Patients received a bone conduction device for external stimulation (Baha BP110, Cochlear) fixed by a headband for comparison. The main outcome measure was speech recognition in noise (Oldenburg Sentence Test). Pure-tone audiometry was performed and subjective benefit was assessed using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaires. Unaided, patients showed a mean signal-to-noise ratio threshold of 4.6 ± 4.2 dB S/N for speech recognition. The aided results were −3.3 ± 7.2 dB S/N by external bone conduction stimulation and −1.2 ± 4.0 dB S/N by the semi-implantable bone conduction device. The difference between the two devices was not statistically significant, while the difference was significant between unaided and aided situation for both devices. Both questionnaires for subjective benefit favored the semi-implantable device over external stimulation. We conclude that it is possible to simulate the result of speech recognition in noise with a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device by external stimulation. This should be part of preoperative counseling of patients with CHL/MHL before implantation of a bone conduction device.

show abstract

“…Finally, as a greater choice in abutment lengths became available, a transition to linear incisions, and most recently, the punch technique, has occurred. 6,[8][9][10][11][12][13] Magnetically coupled devices have made bone conduction hearing implants more attractive to patients. Surgery for these devices requires implantation of a bone anchored magnet which couples to an externally worn bone conduction hearing aid via another magnet -rather than a percutaneous abutment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First Report: Linear Incision for Placement of a Magnetically Coupled Bone-Anchored Hearing Implant

Barry

Reghunathan

Jacob³

2017

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgical techniques for bone-anchored implants continue to evolve. Though manufacturers of magnetically coupled devices recommend using C-shaped incisions with large skin flaps, our first reported cases suggest that a small linear incision immediately overlying the implant magnet may be an acceptable alternative. Potential benefits include a smaller incision, less hair removal, smaller flap, decreased surgical time, and less postoperative pain.

show abstract

Bone conduction implants – a rapidly developing field

Abstract: Advances in surgical technique are described, with the move towards the use of linear incisions and no soft tissue reduction. Methods for preventing complications are analysed, with review of different abutments and the introduction of the active bone conduction implant.

Cited by 26 publications

References 20 publications

Speech Understanding and Sound Localization with a New Nonimplantable Wearing Option for Baha

Speech Understanding and Sound Localization with a New Nonimplantable Wearing Option for Baha

The Prediction of Speech Recognition in Noise With a Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing System by External Bone Conduction Stimulation With Headband

First Report: Linear Incision for Placement of a Magnetically Coupled Bone-Anchored Hearing Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About