Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • J Ray (a1), K Lau (a1), J Moraleda (a1), M Yardley (a1), M Dawoud (a1) (a2) and P A Dimitriadis (a1)...

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

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

Footnotes

Hide All

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.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
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;16:12
2Dimitriadis, PA, Carrick, S, Ray, J. Intermediate outcomes of a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device in a paediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;94:5963
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;273:567–71
4de Wolf, MJ, Hol, MK, Huygen, PL, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Clinical outcome of the simplified surgical technique for BAHA implantation. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1100–8
6Edmiston, RC, Aggarwal, R, Green, KM. Bone conduction implants – a rapidly developing field. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:936–40
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;38:1301–7
8Clamp, PJ, Briggs, RJ. The Cochlear Baha 4 Attract System - design concepts, surgical technique and early clinical results. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015;12:223–30
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;101–37
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;9:56–9
11Branemark, PI, Harders, H. Intravital analysis of microvascular form and function in man. Lancet 1963;2:1197–9
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;2:304–10
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;272:2563–9
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;40:335–43
15O'Niel, MB, Runge, CL, Friedland, DR, Kerschner, JE. Patient outcomes in magnet-based implantable auditory assist devices. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;140:513–20
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;274:1835–51

Keywords

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

  • J Ray (a1), K Lau (a1), J Moraleda (a1), M Yardley (a1), M Dawoud (a1) (a2) and P A Dimitriadis (a1)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed