Performance With an Adhesive Bone Conduction Device in Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant Users

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance and limits of an adhesive bone conduction hearing aid in patients implanted with an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant. Therefore, hearing performance and subjective benefit of patients with mixed and conductive hearing loss were assessed with both bone conduction devices. Study Design and Patients: This cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care center. Fifteen subjects, who had been implanted with an active transcutaneous device previously, were included and used the adhesive hearing device for 3 weeks instead of the implant. Subjects underwent two sets of audiological tests as well as assessments of quality of life at the beginning and at the end of the testing period. Results: Audiological results showed a significantly greater improvement in regards to functional hearing gain and word recognition scores with the transcutaneous bone conduction device than the nonimplantable adhesive device. Regression analysis showed a trend toward greater improvement with the transcutaneous device compared with the adhesive device in patients with an increasing bone conduction threshold. Hearing-specific and general quality-of-life questionnaires revealed no significant difference between the two devices. Conclusion: Patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss experience hearing gain with both, the adhesive device and the active transcutaneous device. The adhesive device may be a valuable alternative to the active transcutaneous device, depending on the individual bone conduction threshold.

Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children

“… 15 Thus, children with better speech intelligibility are likely to communicate more effectively with their peers in group‐based interactions. 17 The subjective satisfaction reported in the literature with the ADH system in adults was high and comparable to our results, 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 31 as were the outcomes with the BB. Several studies reported on the quality of life outcomes in BB adult subjects assessed by various measurement instruments, such as the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) and the Glasgow benefit inventory (GBI).…”

“… 8 The average reported unaided WRS score in the adults using the ADH was around 40% at 65 dB SPL (the normal speech level). 21 , 22 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 The literature also reported an average hearing threshold benefit of roughly 20 dB HL and a mean word recognition score of 75%. Studies reporting on children aged 12 years or younger also showed an average improvement in WRS of 65% with the ADH system.…”

“…The ADH, therefore, is often recommended to be used as a tool to estimate the audiological benefit for patients or to bridge the time until the child reaches the age of 5 until the BB is approved, before undergoing implantation. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 …”

“…Especially, since the research in the past years focused on improving and understanding language and speech perception in children with hearing loss, 2–7 with no studies exploring the impact on the quality of life in children with a Bonebridge or an Adhear 8 . The average reported unaided WRS score in the adults using the ADH was around 40% at 65 dB SPL (the normal speech level) 21,22,27,29–40 . The literature also reported an average hearing threshold benefit of roughly 20 dB HL and a mean word recognition score of 75%.…”

“…The ADH is approved for subjects of all ages and with bone conduction thresholds equal to or smaller than 25 dB. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 …”