Surgical and functional outcomes of two types of transcutaneous bone conduction implants

Scottà, Gianluca; Allam, Ahmed; Dimitriadis, Panagiotis A.; Wright, Kay; Yardley, M. P. J.; Ray, J

doi:10.1017/s0022215120002339

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients showed improvement in 5 listening situations, including conversation in noise, conversation in quiet places, listening to music, watching TV, and directionality of sound. This improvement was at scales of 75% and 95% of the time in all cases [ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, Scotta et al in 2020 compared the GHABP results of BAHA Attract Vs Bonebridge cases. Both groups attained high results in the form of a mean global score of 83 (standard deviation (SD) ± 23.5) in the Bonebridge group and 84 (SD ± 15.3) in the BAHA Attract group [14]. Wazen et al (2021) assessed the hearing and quality of life outcomes for SSD patients implanted with BAHA retrospectively and showed significant improvement regarding all measures of the GHABP including disability scores, benefit, and satisfaction of their patients [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the effectiveness of bone conduction hearing implants in rehabilitation of hearing loss

Ray

Wanees

Dawoud

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Implantable hearing devices are indicated for candidates who could not benefit from conventional hearing aids. This study aimed at evaluating their effectiveness in rehabilitation of hearing loss. Methods This study included patients who received bone conduction implants at Tertiary Teaching Hospitals, between December 2018 and November 2020. Data were collected prospectively, and patients were assessed both subjectively using COSI and GHABP questionnaires and objectively using bone conduction and air conduction thresholds, unaided and aided free field speech thresholds. Outcomes of transcutaneous (tBCHD) and percutaneous (pBCHD) bone conduction hearing devices were compared as well as outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral fitting. Postoperative skin complications were recorded and compared. Results A total of seventy patients were included, thirty-seven of them were implanted with tBCHD and thirty-three with pBCHD. Fifty-five patients were fitted unilaterally compared to 15 bilateral fitting. Preoperative mean of bone conduction (BC) of the overall sample was 23.27 ± 10.91 dB, the Air conduction (AC) mean was 69.27 ± 13.75 dB. There was significant difference between unaided free field speech score (88.51% ± 7.92) and the aided score (96.79 ± 2.38) with P value = 0.00001. The postoperative assessment using GHABP showed a benefit score mean of 70.95 ± 18.79, patient satisfaction score mean of 78.15 ± 18.39. The disability score improved significantly from a mean of 54.08 ± 15.26 to residual score of only 12.50 ± 10.22 with P < 0.00001 postoperatively. There was significant improvement in all parameters of COSI questionnaire following fitting. Comparison of pBCHDs vs tBCHDs showed a non-significant difference regarding FF speech as well as GHABP parameters. Comparison of the post-operative skin complications was in favor of tBCHDs as (86.5%) of the patients had normal skin postoperatively, compared to 45.5% of patients with pBCHDs devices. Bilateral implantation showed significant improvement of FF speech scores, GHABP satisfaction score, as well as COSI score results. Conclusion Bone conduction hearing devices are effective solution for rehabilitation of hearing loss. Bilateral fitting yields satisfactory outcomes in suitable candidates. Transcutaneous devices carry significantly lower skin complication rates compared to percutaneous devices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effectiveness of bone conduction hearing implants in rehabilitation of hearing loss

Ray

Wanees

Dawoud

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our implant-only mean case durations of 99.3 and 80.9 minutes for I1 and I2, respectively, are relatively high compared with current/previous iterations (I1, 29.9–90.0 min (1,6); I2, 52.0–70.6 min (9,10,12)). This may be secondary to differing techniques, initial implant location, familiarity, inclusion of trainees, or high case complexity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…We compare our experiences with two recent iterations of active transcutaneous bone-anchored implants from two different companies (1,(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). We report on the nuances of handling, ease of implantation, and general patient satisfaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bone-anchored hearing implantation (BAI) is an effective procedure for select patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses with sufficient cochlear reserve or in cases of single-sided deafness (SSD) to route sound to the contralateral ear (1,2). Active transcutaneous implants have an external processor that transmits to an internal receiver coupled to a separate vibrator that vibrates cochlear fluid.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Initial Experience With Two Active Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants

Schwam

Perez²,

Oh³

et al. 2022

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo analyze our institutional experience with two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary academic otology-neurotology practice.PatientsPatients with conductive or mixed hearing losses meeting criteria to receive active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.InterventionsImplantation with one of two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.Outcome MeasuresOperative time, dural exposure and decompression, use of lifts, implant position, ease of use, qualitative patient satisfaction, complication rates.ResultsTen patients received Implant 1 and 11 patients received Implant 2. The most common underlying etiologies of hearing loss were chronic suppurative otitis media in 33.3%, atresia/microtia in 23.8%, and cholesteatoma in 23.8%. Average operative times were 99.3 minutes for Implant 1 and 80.9 minutes for Implant 2 (p = 0.263). Implant 1 required lifts in 60%, dural exposure in 50%, and dural compression in 30%. Overall, placement was difficult in 47.6% of cases. There were no intraoperative complications. There were higher rates of issues with sound quality (27.3% versus 0.0%, p = 0.123) and poor cosmesis (36.4% versus 10.0%, p = 0.360) with Implant 2. Functional gain was not recorded, but all patients derived qualitative benefit from their implant. Three patients had local wound complications that self-resolved or were treated with antibiotics. One patient implanted at an outside institution required explant because of multiple infections.ConclusionsThere were no statistically significant differences in outcomes comparing Implants 1 and 2; however, Implant 2 had much higher rates of issues with audio quality and poor cosmesis. Placing Implant 1 often required special techniques.

show abstract

Hearing rehabilitation with Baha® transcutaneous and percutaneous systems

Castiquini,

Alvarenga,

Souza

et al. 2024

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Longitudinally verify the influence of auditory tonal thresholds obtained with transcutaneous and percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids on speech perception in individuals with external and/or middle ear malformation and chronic otitis media. Methods Observational, retrospective, longitudinal follow-up study of 30 unilateral users of the transcutaneous and percutaneous Baha® system for the collection of secondary data on pure tone thresholds obtained through free field audiometry and sentence recognition threshold in silence and noise in conditions: without the prosthesis; at the time of activation; in the first month of use (post 1); and in the third month (post 2). Results There was a significant difference between pure tone thresholds obtained at frequencies of 3 and 4kHz with better results for the percutaneous technique at all evaluation moments. For both systems, better performance was observed in sentence recognition in silence and in noise, with a significant difference in activation (p<0.001), but it remained stable during the other evaluation moments. The percutaneous system showed better benefit in recognizing sentences in noise only on activation (p=0.036), when compared to the transcutaneous system. Conclusion The percutaneous system provided better audibility for high frequencies; however, such audibility did not influence sentence recognition in the silent situation for both systems. For the noise situation, better responses were observed in the percutaneous system, however, the difference was not maintained over time.

show abstract

Surgical and functional outcomes of two types of transcutaneous bone conduction implants

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

Evaluating the effectiveness of bone conduction hearing implants in rehabilitation of hearing loss

Evaluating the effectiveness of bone conduction hearing implants in rehabilitation of hearing loss

Initial Experience With Two Active Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants

Hearing rehabilitation with Baha® transcutaneous and percutaneous systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About