First experiences with a new adhesive bone conduction hearing device in children

Urík, Milan; Hošnová, Dagmar; Šlapák, Ivo; Jančíková, Jana; Odstrčilík, Jan; Jarkovský, Jiří; Baumgartner, Wolf‐Dieter

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109614

Cited by 11 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, we observed, that the pre-operative bone conduction hearing aid trial of up to three months was in terms of SF measurements quiet successful, nonetheless the patients still opted for an implantable solution. We conclude this from the fact (and after correspondence with the parents), that either the stigmatisation, especially in that particular age-group was too high (mean age at implantation was 12 ± 3.5 years), the speech understanding, particularly in challenging environments such as classrooms and at parties, was not sufficient enough and/or the wearing comfort was not given, as for most of those devices, except the ADHEAR, high pressure for optimal sound transmission through the skin is required [ 19 ]. A wide range of non-implantable devices were trialled, from the first pressure-free bone conduction hearing device, the ADHEAR to the well-known Softband versions of the BAHA, up to Mini Contact (Table 1 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Bonebridge bone conduction hearing implant generations: audiological benefit and quality of hearing in children

Šikolová

Urík

Hošnová

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The study aimed to evaluate audiological benefits, quality of hearing and safety of two Bonebridge generation: BCI601 and BCI602 (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) in children. Methods Twelve children were implanted: five BCI601 and seven BCI602 comprising of ten conductive hearing loss, and two single sided deaf SSD subjects. Audiological outcomes tested were sound field audiometry, functional gain, speech recognition threshold (SRT50), speech recognition in noise (SPRINT) and localisation abilities. Subjective measures were Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12). Results The mean FG with the BCI601 was 25.0 dB and with the BCI602 28.0 dB. The benefit in SRT50 was 23.2 dB and 33.8 dB, respectively. The mean benefit in SPRINT was 15% and 6.7% and the localisation ability improved from 33.3° to 16° and from 26.2° to 17.6°, respectively. The two SSD subjects reported a FG of 17 dB, a benefit in SRT50 of 22.5 and a benefit in SPRINT of 20%. Subjective outcomes improved significantly and even exceeded the values of their age-and sex matched normal hearing peers. One revision was reported: a retroauricular emphysema above the implant occurred 12 months post-OP, it was resolved operatively with the implant still being functional. Conclusion The pediatric cohort reports significant audiological benefit, even exceeding that of the age- and sex matched control. The combination of the high safety and audiological benefit makes the Bonebridge a comfortable and effective option in hearing rehabilitation in children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Bonebridge bone conduction hearing implant generations: audiological benefit and quality of hearing in children

Šikolová

Urík

Hošnová

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The adhesive BCD can also be an option for patients who require a BC hearing aid for only a short period of time, such as children who do not have sufficient skull thickness for other implant options [11,12], children with temporary CHL (e.g. previous middle ear surgery or transient ear pathology) [4], or even when surgery is contraindicated or the parents simply want to avoid it [6,7,21]. One important aspect in children with microtia and canal atresia is that the placement of the ptBCI with the osseo-integrated fixture and/or magnet transducer, must not compromise the option of auricle reconstruction in the future [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the aBCD was reported to be more aesthetically attractive than the softband BCD [3,7,10,19] and easier to connect and disconnect to the adapter. Esthetic concerns are highly relevant for acceptance by teenagers [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main disadvantages of the softband are unstable positioning, poor esthetics, and discomfort due to constant pressure on the mastoid [3,6]. A passive transcutaneous bone conduction implant (ptBCI) was first launched in 2006 and a similar product from a different company was introduced in 2013 [7][8][9]. Although the ptBCI requires surgery, it overcomes some of the disadvantages of the softband device.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Adhesive and Passive Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Systems in Atretic Children

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:In 2017, the first adhesive bone conduction device (aBCD) was introduced. Since then, clinical studies have extensively compared adhesive bone conduction devices to conventional bone conduction systems on softbands. The aim of this study is to evaluate the audiological and subjective outcomes of patients suffering from conductive hearing loss (CHL) who used an aBCD for a trial period, comparing outcomes with their existing passive transcutaneous bone conduction implants (ptBCI), which was either the Sophono Alpha or the BAHA Attract. Material and methods:This prospective study included 14 congenital aural atresia patients between 7 and 16 years old. Participants had been ptBCI users for at least 2 years and had bone conduction thresholds ≤ 25 dB HL. The aBCD trial was for 1 week. Average pure tone thresholds (PTA4) and word recognition scores (WRS) with disyllabic words at 65 dB SPL in quiet and in noise were measured for each device. Subjective outcomes were recorded using the aBCD mini questionnaire and the SSQ questionnaire for hearing satisfaction, which were filled in by parents. Results:We analyzed 16 ears. The mean sound field PTA4 was 52 dB HL unaided, 27 dB HL ptBCI-aided and 29 dB HL aBCD-aided. Mean WRS in quiet was 96% with ptBCI and 95% with aBCD. In noise (+5 dB SNR) the mean WRS was 70% with ptBCI and 77% with aBCD. A questionnaire revealed easy handling and good acceptance of the aBCD. Conclusions:In this group of patients, comparable audiological and subjective satisfaction results were achieved with a non-implantable adhesive bone conduction device. Despite differences in handling, the adhesive BCD presents itself as an alternative to transcutaneous bone conduction implants.

show abstract

“…The aid gave her subjectively better intelligibility in noise and directional listening, as had been demonstrated also by various studies. 8 Sound field audiometry with the ADHEAR was conducted at 20, 5, 15, 25, and 35 dB and speech audiometry with an SRT of 20 dB with the masking of healthy ear. Having fulfilled all indication criteria, the girl was selected by the indication commission as a suitable candidate for allocation of a BB active bone conduction system.…”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retroauricular Emphysema as a Late Complication After Bonebridge Implantation: Case Report

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bonebridge (BB) is the first active implantation system for bone conduction that is placed fully under the skin. Experience suggests that BB is characterized by low incidence of postoperative complications. This case report presents a rare case of a 16-year-old girl with incidence of emphysema occurring over the implant 1 year after operation. We performed a computed tomography scan that showed pockets of gas above the floating mass transducer so we provided the revision surgery and sealed the artificial opening with fat from the earlobe and fibrin glue. Since that time, no air has collected in the retroauricular area and the implant has been fully functional.

show abstract

First experiences with a new adhesive bone conduction hearing device in children

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Two Bonebridge bone conduction hearing implant generations: audiological benefit and quality of hearing in children

Two Bonebridge bone conduction hearing implant generations: audiological benefit and quality of hearing in children

Comparison of Adhesive and Passive Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Systems in Atretic Children

Retroauricular Emphysema as a Late Complication After Bonebridge Implantation: Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About