Preoperative Headband Assessment for Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing Devices in Conductive Hearing Loss

Rainsbury, James; Williams, Blair; Gulliver, Mark; Morris, David P.

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000000695

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The preoperative and postoperative results can be seen in the S2 Table. Speech understanding in quiet was assessed in 27 publications [16, 26, 27, 7, 28, 22, 29, 24, 30, 10, 31, 25, 32–34, 18, 12, 13, 35, 36, 20, 14, 37, 38, 21, 39], resulting in a mean unaided WRS score of 25.73±23.64% improving to 84.48±15.09% in the aided condition, resulting in an overall mean improvement of almost 60% (S2 Table).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The device’s transcutaneous technology avoids several complications found in percutaneous bone conduction implants including skin reaction, growth of skin over the abutment, implant extrusion, and wound infection [47, 44, 34, 46]. The complication rate reported for atBCI recipients was considerably lower with one minor event in 9.9 person-years, compared to other devices, especially percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids such as the BAHA (Cochlear Limited, Australia)[48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn July 2018 the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant received FDA approval in the US (for patients 12 years and older with conductive and/or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness), reflecting the current trend of moving away from percutaneous hearing solutions towards intact skin systems.ObjectivesTo critically assess the current literature on safety, efficacy and subjective benefit after implantation with an active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device.Data sourcesLiterature investigation was performed by electronic database search including PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and manual search of relevant journals and reference lists of included studies.Study eligibility criteriaRandomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials and cohort studies, case series and case reports investigating subjective and objective outcomes.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsRetrieved literature was screened and extracted by two reviewers independently. Subgroup analysis of indications (conductive and/or mixed hearing loss, single-sided deafness) and participant ages (pediatric vs. adults) was conducted on patients with active transcutaneous bone conduction devices. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of the results in meta-analysis.Results39 citations reporting on pre- and postoperative audiological results, speech performance in quiet and in noise, localization testing as well as subjective outcomes were included in this systematic review. Functional gain as well as word recognition score outcomes could be further investigated via meta-analysis. All outcomes reported and summarized here reflect beneficial audiological performance and high patient satisfaction, accompanied with a low complications rate (minor event incidence rate: 9.9 person-years; major incidence rate: 148.9 person-years) for the indications of conductive and mixed hearing loss as well as in individuals suffering from single-sided deafness for all age groups of subjects who underwent active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device implantation.LimitationsA limiting factor of this systematic review was the Level of Evidence of the reviewed literature, comprising 2a/3a studies (cohort studies and case-control studies). Furthermore, the reporting standards, especially in outcomes such as word recognition scores in quiet and in noise, vary across study cites from various countries, which impedes comparisons. Last but not least, no other comparable other device was retrieved as the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device is the only available at the moment.ConclusionThe device’s transcutaneous technology results in a minor event incidence rate of one in 9.9 person-years and a major incidence rate of one in 148.9 person-years. Based on the audiological outcomes, high patient satisfaction as well as the low complication rate, the authors recommend the active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device as a safe and effective treatment for patients sufferi...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, the BAHS were worn with a headband and had not been implanted. The hearing results achieved with a headband are worse than with semi-implantable devices [ 18 ]. In the BAHS group, the SssdNnh configuration showed an improvement after 1 year with the implanted BAHS that seems to be better than after 3-week testing with a headband.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

Jakob

Speck

Rauch

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Methods Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. Results 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. Conclusion The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.

show abstract

“…These findings are in keeping with a series from Dalhousie University, Canada, where Rainsbury et al . assessed a series of seven implants (Bonebridge only) and found that the headband assessment underestimated the implanted device 5 . Rainsbury et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rainsbury et al . compared pre-operative softband bone conduction thresholds and speech discrimination scores with post-operative tests using their transcutaneous bone conducting aid in a small sample 5 . They demonstrated a correlation between pre-operative bone conduction thresholds and post-operative aided sound-field thresholds, but not between pre- and post-operative speech testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the use of a bone conduction hearing device on a softband a useful tool in the pre-operative assessment of suitability for other hearing implants?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Preoperative Headband Assessment for Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing Devices in Conductive Hearing Loss

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?

Is the use of a bone conduction hearing device on a softband a useful tool in the pre-operative assessment of suitability for other hearing implants?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About