Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T13:19:35.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soft-tissue outcomes following implantation of different types of bone conduction hearing devices in a single centre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2019

J Ray ,
K Lau ,
J Moraleda ,
M Yardley ,
M Dawoud  and
P A Dimitriadis
J Ray
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, UK
K Lau*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, UK
J Moraleda
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, UK
M Yardley
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, UK
M Dawoud
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, UK Otolaryngology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Al Minufya, Egypt
P A Dimitriadis
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Ms Kimberley Lau, Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Glossop Road, SheffieldS10 2JF, UK E-mail: Kimberleylau@doctors.org.uk Fax: +44 114 271 2280
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To compare soft-tissue complications following implantation of different bone conduction hearing devices.

Methods

Adults who underwent implantation of different bone conduction hearing devices, between January 2008 and December 2016, were included in the study. Five groups were identified depending on the soft-tissue approach: (1) split-thickness skin flap with use of dermatome; (2) Sheffield ‘S’-shaped incision with skin thinning; (3) linear incision without skin thinning (hydroxyapatite-coated abutment); (4) ‘C’-shaped full-thickness incision for passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices; and (5) post-aural incision for active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices. The main outcome measures were different soft-tissue complications.

Results

The study comprised 120 patients (group 1 = 20 patients, group 2 = 35, group 3 = 35, group 4 = 20, and group 5 = 10). Soft tissue related problems were encountered in 55 per cent of patients from group 1, 26 per cent in group 2, 3 per cent in group 3, and 0 per cent in groups 4 and 5.

Conclusion

There was a reduction in soft tissue related complications with reduced soft-tissue handling. In addition, there was a shift from an initial skin-penetrating (percutaneous) approach to a non-skin-penetrating (transcutaneous) approach.

Keywords

SkinTreatment OutcomeBone ConductionHearing Aids
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 12 , December 2019 , pp. 1079 - 1082
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019

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

Ms K Lau takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented as a poster at the 5th Congress of European Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 29 June – 3 July 2019, Brussels, Belgium.

References

1Dimitriadis, PA, Farr, MR, Allam, A, Ray, J. Three year experience with the Cochlear BAHA Attract implant: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 2016;16:12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Dimitriadis, PA, Carrick, S, Ray, J. Intermediate outcomes of a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device in a paediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;94:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Carr, SD, Moraleda, J, Baldwin, A, Ray, J. Bone-conduction hearing aids in an elderly population: complications and quality of life assessment. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:567–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4de Wolf, MJ, Hol, MK, Huygen, PL, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Clinical outcome of the simplified surgical technique for BAHA implantation. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1100–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Baha® Connect System. In: https://www.cochlear.com/in/en/home/products-and-accessories/baha-system/baha-implants/baha-connect-system [20 May 2019]Google Scholar
6Edmiston, RC, Aggarwal, R, Green, KM. Bone conduction implants – a rapidly developing field. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:936–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Dimitriadis, PA, Hind, D, Wright, K, Proctor, V, Greenwood, L, Carrick, S et al. Single-center experience of over a hundred implantations of a transcutaneous bone conduction device. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:1301–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Clamp, PJ, Briggs, RJ. The Cochlear Baha 4 Attract System - design concepts, surgical technique and early clinical results. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015;12:223–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Dimitriadis, PA, Vlastarakos, PV, Nikolopoulos, TP. Treatment of sensorineural hearing loss: contemporary rehabilitation and future prospects. In: Dupont, JP, ed. Hearing Loss: Classification, Causes and Treatment. New York: NOVA Biomedical Books, 2011;101–37Google Scholar
10Holgers, KM, Tjellström, A, Bjursten, LM, Erlandsson, BE. Soft tissue reactions around percutaneous implants: a clinical study of soft tissue conditions around skin-penetrating titanium implants for bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol 1988;9:56–9Google ScholarPubMed
11Branemark, PI, Harders, H. Intravital analysis of microvascular form and function in man. Lancet 1963;2:1197–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Tjellström, 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
13Devèze, A, Rossetto, S, Meller, R, Sanjuan Puchol, M. Switching from a percutaneous to a transcutaneous bone anchored hearing system: the utility of the fascia temporalis superficialis pedicled flap in case of skin intolerance. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:2563–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Kruyt, IJ, Kok, H, Bosman, A, Nelissen, RC, Mylanus, EAM, Hol, MKS. Three-year clinical and audiological outcomes of percutaneous implants for bone conduction devices: comparison between tissue preservation technique and tissue reduction technique. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:335–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15O'Niel, MB, Runge, CL, Friedland, DR, Kerschner, JE. Patient outcomes in magnet-based implantable auditory assist devices. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;140:513–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Schmerber, S, Deguine, O, Marx, M, Van de Heyning, P, Sterkers, O, Mosnier, I et al. Safety and effectiveness of the Bonebridge transcutaneous active direct-drive bone-conduction hearing implant at 1-year device use. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274:1835–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed