Comparison of Audiological Results Between a Transcutaneous and a Percutaneous Bone Conduction Instrument in Conductive Hearing Loss

Gerdes, Timo; Salcher, Rolf; Schwab, Burkard; Lenarz, Thomas; Maier, Hannes

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000001010

Cited by 56 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our audiological results are in line with previous studies [ 4 , 13 , 14 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 35 , 36 ]. The mean gain in speech understanding was very high compared to the results in other studies, which also used the German monosyllabic Freiburger test at 65 dB [ 23 – 25 , 29 , 35 , 36 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Patient-reported long-term benefit with an active transcutaneous bone-conduction device

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the long-term benefits in hearing-related quality of life, patient satisfaction and wearing time of patients rehabilitated with an active transcutaneous bone-conduction device. Adverse events and audiological outcomes are reported as secondary outcomes. Methods This retrospective, mono-centric cohort analysis involves 16 adults with conductive or mixed hearing loss with a mean device experience of 51.25 months. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed using the short version of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12-B) and the German version of the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ). Audiological outcomes as well as incidence of adverse events were obtained from patients´ charts. Results The hearing-related quality of life improved significantly within all subscales of the SSQ12-B scoring a mean overall of 2.95 points. Patient satisfaction measured with the APSQ scored 8.8 points on average. Wearing times differed considerably and patients with lower levels of education seemed to use their device longer compared to patients with academic education. Eight minor adverse events were documented, all of which resolved during follow-up. The mean gain in word recognition score at the last follow-up measured at 65 dB was 75.9%, while speech reception threshold was lowered by 35.1 dB. Conclusion Even after several years, patients report significant benefits in hearing-related quality of life and device satisfaction. In combination with a low rate of minor adverse events and significantly improved audiological outcomes, the device is considered as a comfortable and effective option in hearing rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Patient-reported long-term benefit with an active transcutaneous bone-conduction device

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are two routes through which BCIs can stimulate the cochlea: over skin drives and direct bone drives. In general, the outcome of direct bone drives is better than over skin since soft tissue and skin dampen sound pressure at higher frequencies [3]. Direct bone drive BCIs can be further classified into percutaneous, passive transcutaneous or active transcutaneous devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most commonly used percutaneous BCI is the bone anchored hearing aid (Cochlear™ Baha® System, Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia) [2]. These devices directly vibrate the temporal bone through a surgically implanted osseointegrated titanium screw and a skin-penetrating abutment attached to an external fixture [3]. While the Cochlear™ Baha® System has favourable audiological outcomes, it is associated with certain disadvantages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The BONEBRIDGE active transcutaneous bone conduction implant: effects of location, lifts and screws on sound transmission

Rohani

Bartling

Ladak

et al. 2020

J of Otolaryngol - Head & Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The BONEBRIDGE (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) is a bone-conduction implant used in the treatment of conductive and mixed hearing loss. The BONEBRIDGE consists of an external audio processor and a boneconduction floating mass transducer that is surgically implanted into the skull in either the transmastoid, retrosigmoid or middle fossa regions. The manufacturer includes self-tapping screws to secure the transducer; however, self-drilling screws have also been used with success. In cases where the skull is not thick enough to house the transducer, lifts are available in a variety of sizes to elevate the transducer away from the skull. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of screw type, lift thickness, and implant location on the sound transmission of the BONEBRIDGE. Method: Six cadaveric temporal bones were embalmed and dried for use in this study. In each sample, a hole was drilled in each of the three implant locations to house the implant transducer. At the middle fossa, six pairs of screw holes were pre-drilled; four pairs to be used with self-tapping screws and lifts (1, 2, 3, and 4 mm thick lifts, respectively), one pair with self-tapping screws and no lifts, and one pair with self-drilling screws and no lifts. At the transmastoid and retrosigmoid locations, one pair of screw holes were pre-drilled in each for the use of the selftapping screws. The vibration of transmitted sound to the cochlea was measured using a laser Doppler vibrometry technique. The measurements were performed on the cochlear promontory at eight discrete frequencies (0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 6 kHz). Vibration velocity of the cochlear wall was measured in all samples. Measurements were analyzed using a single-factor ANOVA to investigate the effect of each modification. Results: No significant differences were found related to either screw type, lift thickness, or implant location.

show abstract

“…Results from other similar studies are of interest, and especially comparisons with the commercially available active transcutaneous Bone Bridge (Med El). The selected comparative studies are chosen with the criteria that both tone and speech audiometry are performed in unaided and aided conditions and where at least 6 or more subjects are included [Ihler et al, 2014;Rahne and Ehelebe, 2014;Riss et al, 2014;Eberhard et al, 2016;Gerdes et al, 2016;Ihler et al, 2016;Schmerber et al, 2017]. Different methods have been applied concerning indication for the Bone Bridge, number of subjects, tone and speech audiometry, follow-up time, and the presentation of questionnaires.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There also seems to be an established benefit from the questionnaire results compared to the unaided situation. A few studies include comparison with the Bone Anchored Hearing Aid either on head band or as a percutaneous solution (different group of patients) [Gerdes et al, 2016;Ihler et al, 2016;Schmerber et al, 2017]. Also, in these aspects the comparisons with the BCI are similar.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Year Follow-Up with the Bone Conduction Implant

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The bone conduction implant (BCI) is an active transcutaneous bone conduction device where the transducer has direct contact to the bone, and the skin is intact. Sixteen patients have been implanted with the BCI with a planned follow-up of 5 years. This study reports on hearing, quality of life, and objective measures up to 36 months of follow-up in 10 patients. Method: Repeated measures were performed at fitting and after 1, 3, 6, 12, and 36 months including sound field warble tone thresholds, speech recognition thresholds in quiet, speech recognition score in noise, and speech-to-noise thresholds for 50% correct words with adaptive noise. Three quality of life questionnaires were used to capture the benefit from the intervention, appreciation from different listening situations, and the ability to interact with other people when using the BCI. The results were compared to the unaided situation and a Ponto Pro Power on a soft band. The implant functionality was measured by nasal sound pressure, and the retention force from the audio processor against the skin was measured using a specially designed audio processor and a force gauge. Results: Audiometry and quality of life questionnaires using the BCI or the Ponto Pro Power on a soft band were significantly improved compared to the unaided situation and the results were statistically supported. There was generally no significant difference between the two devices. The nasal sound pressure remained stable over the study period and the force on the skin from the audio processor was 0.71 ± 0.22 N (mean ± 1 SD). Conclusion: The BCI improves the hearing ability for tones and speech perception in quiet and in noise for the indicated patients. The results are stable over a 3-year period, and the patients subjectively report a beneficial experience from using the BCI. The transducer performance and contact to the bone is unchanged over time, and the skin area under the audio processor remains without complications during the 3-year follow-up.

show abstract

Comparison of Audiological Results Between a Transcutaneous and a Percutaneous Bone Conduction Instrument in Conductive Hearing Loss

Abstract: Our data show that the transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant is an audiologically equivalent alternative to percutaneous bone-anchored devices in conductive hearing loss with a minor sensorineural hearing loss component.

Cited by 56 publications

References 14 publications

Patient-reported long-term benefit with an active transcutaneous bone-conduction device

Patient-reported long-term benefit with an active transcutaneous bone-conduction device

The BONEBRIDGE active transcutaneous bone conduction implant: effects of location, lifts and screws on sound transmission

Three-Year Follow-Up with the Bone Conduction Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About