The outcomes of bilateral bone conduction hearing devices (BCHD) implantation in the treatment of hearing loss: A systematic review

Heath, Ella; Dawoud, Moustafa Mohamed; Stavrakas, Marios; Ray, Jaydip

doi:10.1080/14670100.2021.2001926

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The outcomes of patients fitted with unilateral (55 patients) and bilateral (15 patients) BCHDs match the expected outcomes in manufacturer's recommendations as well as the NHS commissioning guidelines in the UK [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Recently, bilateral fitting was approved in certain countries including the UK, where it was approved in 2016 [ 11 ]. Few studies evaluated the effectiveness of such fitting versus unilateral fitting since then.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bilateral BCHDs showed less response in the speech detection in noise. Further advantages of bilateral implantation were found in the QoL results, with all studies reporting overall improvements [ 11 , 21 , 27 ]. Improvements were noted by parents and teachers for those with bilateral losses and bilateral BCHDs compared to unilateral BCHDs [ 21 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…BCHDs are classified into passive BCHDs (e.g., BAHA—either connect or attract- or the Ponto device by Oticon ) and active BCHDs (e.g., Med-EL Bonebridge ® [ 6 , 7 ] and the new Osia ® system by Cochlear Ltd ) [ 8 , 9 ] . These devices are indicated in patients with conductive hearing loss (CHL), mixed hearing loss (MHL) or in single sided deafness (SSD) with stable bone conduction hearing thresholds(BC) within the recommended manufacturer’s range [ 10 , 11 ]. BAHA attract is a passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices (tBCHD) that delivers sound waves to a passive implant magnet across an intact skin barrier whilst Osia ® & Bonebridge ® are active tBCHDs where the processor transfers acoustic information to the active receiver stimulator package across intact skin which in turn actively recreates the sound signal for transmission by bone conduction [ 8 , 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These devices are indicated in patients with conductive hearing loss (CHL), mixed hearing loss (MHL) or in single sided deafness (SSD) with stable bone conduction hearing thresholds(BC) within the recommended manufacturer’s range [ 10 , 11 ]. BAHA attract is a passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices (tBCHD) that delivers sound waves to a passive implant magnet across an intact skin barrier whilst Osia ® & Bonebridge ® are active tBCHDs where the processor transfers acoustic information to the active receiver stimulator package across intact skin which in turn actively recreates the sound signal for transmission by bone conduction [ 8 , 11 ]. BAHA Connect and the Oticon Ponto are percutaneous devices (pBCHDs) which connect to the processor via a skin-penetrating abutment [ 8 , 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Ray

Wanees

Dawoud

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Self Cite

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: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%