Comparative outcomes of active and passive hearing devices by transcutaneous bone conduction

Abstract

Conclusion Bonebridge (BB) and Sophono (SP) devices improved hearing; with the BB implant showing a better performance at medium and high frequencies. Furthermore, the BB, as an active implant, showed higher functional gain and increased time of use, when compared to the SP, a passive system. Objectives This study aims to compare surgical and audiological outcomes of SP and BB devices in order to assess and further differentiate the indication criteria. Methods Fourteen patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss were evaluated pre- and post-operatively (BB or SP) (period 2013-2014). Age, gender, surgical history, cause and type of hearing loss, implant use per day, levels of bone and air conduction, and functional gain were recorded. Data was analysed by Wilcoxon singed-rank and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results Fourteen patients (BB; n = 10 and SP; n = 4) with an average age = 25.42 years (CI95 = 12.41-38.43) were evaluated. The gender relation was equal (1:1), with pre-implantation osseous thresholds of 20.42 dB (CI95 = 11.15-29.69), and pre-implantation aerial thresholds of 70.83 dB (CI95 = 62.52-79.14). The SP wearing time was significantly lower than that of the BB (SP = 7-10 h/day, BB = 8-12 h/day; p = 0.0323). The functional gain did not differ significantly between the two devices (BB = 40.00 ± 13.19 dB, SP = 34.06 ± 15.63 dB; p = 0.3434), but a significant improvement from pre- to post-implantation was observed (p < 0.05). BB and SP decreased auditory thresholds at 1 and 2 kHz (< 0.01), respectively. The BB even significantly decreased thresholds at 0.5 kHz (p = 0.0140) and 4 kHz (p < 0.0001). No relevant surgical complications were found.

Long-term results of atresiaplasty in patients with congenital aural atresia

“…Despite potential skin problems [13][14][15] and aesthetic issues, the hearing results are predictable and in most cases stable over time. In conductive hearing loss, hearing results improve with bone-anchored hearing devices from 20 to 35 dB HL, with the results being better with percutaneous devices and worse with passive transcutaneous magnet devices [16][17][18][19]. In our study, despite the modest postoperative hearing results, only a few patients were offered other rehabilitation options.…”

Leserbrief von Prof. Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. Dr. h. c. Ralf Siegert

“…In unseren eigenen Publikationen zu teilimplantierbaren transkutanen Knochenleitungsversorgung erzielten wir mit den früheren Geräten Hörgewinne von über 30 dB. Zernotti et al erreichen mit dem Sophono-System im Mittel 34 dB [6]. Denoyelle et al [7] haben diese Systeme speziell bei Kindern bis 9 Jahre eingesetzt und einen mittleren Hörgewinn von über 40 dB erreicht.…”

Implantable Audiologic Devices and Facial Plastic Surgery in Elderly Patients

“…1 BCD are alternatives when the benefit of conventional prosthetic equipment is limited or contraindicated. 1,2 BCDs directly stimulate the inner ear by skull vibration.…”

“…1 BCD are alternatives when the benefit of conventional prosthetic equipment is limited or contraindicated. 1,2 BCDs directly stimulate the inner ear by skull vibration. 1 Bone conduction devices can feature either transcutaneous transmission, the externally audio processor is magnetically coupled to an implanted transducer; or percutaneous transmission, the audio processor is snapped on to a skin-penetrating implant.…”

“…1 Bone conduction devices can feature either transcutaneous transmission, the externally audio processor is magnetically coupled to an implanted transducer; or percutaneous transmission, the audio processor is snapped on to a skin-penetrating implant. 1,3 The complications from the implantation procedure are like those of other implantable prosthesis, including a cochlear implant These may be major complications, exceptional, requiring re-operation or hospitalization, or minor ones, which are often solved in the office 4 minor adverse event are present in less than 5% of cases. 2 The most common (non-device-related) complications of cochlear implant (CI) are skin flap necrosis, infection, dehiscence and device extrusion.…”