Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-06T20:36:28.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2020

G Scotta ,
A Allam ,
P A Dimitriadis ,
K Wright ,
M Yardley  and
J Ray
G Scotta*
Affiliation:
Regional Department of Neurotology, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
A Allam
Affiliation:
Regional Department of Neurotology, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK Department of ENT, Mansoura University, Egypt
P A Dimitriadis
Affiliation:
Regional Department of Neurotology, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
K Wright
Affiliation:
Regional Department of Neurotology, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
M Yardley
Affiliation:
Regional Department of Neurotology, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
J Ray
Affiliation:
Regional Department of Neurotology, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Mr Gianluca Scotta, Regional Department of Neurotology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, SheffieldS10 2JF, UK E-mail: gianluca.scotta@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate surgical and functional outcomes, in a tertiary referral centre, of two different types of semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction devices.

Method

This study involved prospective data collection and review of patients implanted between November 2014 and December 2016. Glasgow Hearing Aid Inventory (Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile or Glasgow Hearing Aid Difference Profile) and Client Oriented Scale of Improvement were completed where appropriate. Surgical and audiological outcomes were recorded in the surgical notes.

Results

Glasgow Hearing Aid Difference Profile and Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile showed similar mean score in the active and the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement showed improvements in listening situations. Post-operative speech reception threshold showed better mean threshold in the active transcutaneous bone conduction devices group when compared with the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices group. No device failures or surgical complications existed in either group, with the surgical time being less in the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices group.

Conclusion

Both devices are reliable semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction devices with excellent surgical and functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. Overall surgical time was much less in the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices group with no necessity for pre-planning. This is much easier to remove with the possibility of conversion to other devices in the manufacturer’s portfolio and wide-ranging wireless accessories. Further studies are needed to assess the longer-term results in a bigger population.

Keywords

Bone ConductionAcoustic Bone Conduction ImplantBAHAHearing AidsHearing LossActive Bone Conduction ImplantPassive Active Bone Conduction Implant
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 134 , Issue 12 , December 2020 , pp. 1065 - 1068
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Mr G Scotta takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented as a poster at Implantable Acoustic Devices Conference, 11–12 October 2018, Sheffield, UK.

References

Mudry, A, Tjellström, A. Historical background of bone conduction hearing devices and bone conduction hearing aids. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;71:1–9Google ScholarPubMed
Sprinzl, GM, Wolf-Magele, A. The Bonebridge bone conduction hearing implant: indication criteria, surgery and a systematic review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol 2016;41:131–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snik, AF, Bosman, AJ, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Candidacy for the bone-anchored hearing aid. Audiol Neurootol 2004;9:190–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snik, AF, Mylanus, EA, Proops, DW, Wolfaardt, JF, Hodgetts, WE, Somers, T et al. Consensus statements on the BAHA system: where do we stand at present? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2005;195:2–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tjellström, A, Lindström, J, Hallén, O, Albrektsson, T, Brånemark, PI. Osseointegrated titanium implants in the temporal bone. A clinical study on bone–anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol 1981;2:304–10Google ScholarPubMed
Burton, MJ, Niparko, JK, Johansson, CB, Tjellström, A. Titanium-anchored prostheses in otology. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29:301–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stalfors, J, Tjellström, A. Skin reactions after BAHA surgery: a comparison between the U-graft technique and the BAHA dermatome. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1109–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, JW, Kutz, JW Jr. Bone-anchored hearing aids incidence and management of postoperative complications. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:213–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Wolf, MJF, Hol, MKS, Huygen, PL, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Clinical outcome of the simplified surgical technique for BAHA implantation. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1100–08CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ray, J, Addams-Williams, J, Baldwin, A. Minimal access surgery for implantable bone conduction systems: early experience with the “Sheffield” incision. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1232–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinfeldt, S, Håkansson, B, Taghavi, H, Eeg-Olofsson, M. New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl) 2015;8:79–93Google ScholarPubMed
Zernotti, ME, Di Gregorio, MF, Galeazzi, P, Tabernero, P. Comparative outcomes of active and passive hearing devices by transcutaneous bone conduction. Acta Otolaryngol 2016;136:556–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, R, Van Hasselt, A, Luntz, M, Goycoolea, M, Wigren, S, Weber, P et al. Clinical performance of a new magnetic bone conduction hearing implant system: results from a prospective, multicenter, clinical investigation. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:834–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurz, A, Flynn, M, Caversaccio, M, Kompis, M. Speech understanding with a new implant technology: a comparative study with a new nonskin penetrating Baha system. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:416205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NHS England (2016) clinical commissioning policy: bone conducting hearing implants (BCHIs) for hearing loss (all ages). In: https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2013/05/16041_FINAL.pdf [2 April 2019]Google Scholar
Orhan, KS, Ray, J, Polat, B, Carr, S, Deleito, JM, Greenwood, L et al. Superiorly curved scalp incision for implantation of magnetic transcutaneous bone conduction devices: multicentre experience of 60 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:949–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arunachalam, PS, Kilby, D, Meikle, D, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid quality of life assessed by Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1260–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 2002;28:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, H, James, A, Ginis, J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1997;8:27–43Google ScholarPubMed
Plontke, SK, Radetzki, F, Seiwerth, I, Herzog, M, Brandt, S, Delank, KS et al. Individual computer-assisted 3D planning for surgical placement of a new bone conduction hearing device. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1251–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, TH, Park, YA, Seo, YJ. Image-guided implantation of the Bonebridge™ with a surgical navigation: A feasibility study. Int J Surg Case Rep 2017;30:112–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, SD, Bruce, IA, Jones, D, Ray, J. Outcomes following conversion of a percutaneous to a transcutaneous bone conduction device in eight children. Clin otolaryngol 2017;4;917–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bere, ZS, Vass, G, Perenyi, A, Rovo, L. Conversion of the percutaneous bone anchored hearing aid system to a transcutaneous one - a straight forward surgical solution. Glob J Oto 2018;14:555892Google Scholar
Bosman, AJ, Kruyt, IJ, Mylanus, EAM, Hol, MKS, Snik, AFM. On the evaluation of a superpower sound processor for bone-anchored hearing. Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:450–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, J. Cochlear Implants: Audiologic Management and Considerations for Implantable Hearing Devices. San Diego: Plural Publishing, 2018;769–72Google Scholar