Transcutaneous versus percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: A quality of life comparison

Robinette, Kyle; Sims, Jake; Pang, Bo; Babu, Seilesh

doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2022.103758

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our meta-analysis also found that the use of percutaneous implanted BCDs resulted in significantly higher rates of postoperative complications and revision surgery than transcutaneous devices, consistent with previous studies on overall outcomes with the use of these devices (74–76). Although implant site irritation was the most common complication for both groups, pBCD had higher rates of local soft tissue reactions and infections as well as issues with implant extrusion and skin overgrowth over the abutment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparison of Transcutaneous and Percutaneous Implantable Hearing Devices for the Management of Congenital Aural Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gutierrez,

Shannon,

Nguyen

et al. 2023

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare audiometric outcomes, complications, and revisions required for percutaneous (pBCD) versus transcutaneous (tBCD) implantable bone-conduction devices for the treatment of hearing loss associated with congenital aural atresia (CAA). Databases Reviewed. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL. Methods A systematic review was performed searching for English language articles from inception to December 14, 2022. Studies reporting audiometric outcomes or complications for either pBCDs or tBCDs for the treatment of CAA were selected for inclusion. A meta-analysis of single means and meta-analysis of proportions with comparison (Δ) of weighted proportions was conducted. Results A total of 56 articles with 756 patients were selected for inclusion. One hundred ninety patients were implanted with pBCDs, whereas the remaining 566 were implanted with tBCDs. Mean pure-tone audiometry improvement in the pBCD group (39.1 ± 1.1 dB) was significantly higher than in the tBCD group (34.6 ± 1.6 dB; Δ4.5 dB; 95% confidence interval, 4.2–4.7 dB; p < 0.0001). The average improvement in speech reception threshold was 38.6 ± 2.5 dB in the percutaneous group as compared with 32.7 ± 1.6 dB in the transcutaneous group (Δ5.9 dB [5.3–6.5 dB], p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates for patients implanted with pBCDs and tBCDs were 29.0% (15.7–44.4%) and 9.4% (6.5%–13.0%), respectively (Δ19.6% [12.0–27.7%], p < 0.0001). Conclusions Patients with CAA implanted with pBCDs had significantly better audiometric outcomes than those implanted with tBCDs. However, complication rates were significantly higher among the pBCD group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparison of Transcutaneous and Percutaneous Implantable Hearing Devices for the Management of Congenital Aural Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gutierrez,

Shannon,

Nguyen

et al. 2023

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction are different designs of bone-anchored hearing aids for deaf patients. 16 Another example is the transcutaneous measurement of oxygen saturation in blood by pulse oximetry is noninvasive, i.e., does not breach the skin unlike percutaneous devices. Nevertheless, in the orthopedics space, both percutaneous and transcutaneous are used synonymously while referring to devices that breach the skin barrier to connect to internal tissues or organs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In accordance with the etymology of the two words, percutaneous means “through a disruption in the skin” where as transcutaneous refers to “penetrating, entering, passing through intact skin” either by light waves or sound waves. For instance, transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction are different designs of bone-anchored hearing aids for deaf patients . Another example is the transcutaneous measurement of oxygen saturation in blood by pulse oximetry is noninvasive, i.e., does not breach the skin unlike percutaneous devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft and Hard Tissue Integration around Percutaneous Bone-Anchored Titanium Prostheses: Toward Achieving Holistic Biointegration

Shrivas,

Samaur,

Yadav

et al. 2024

ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A holistic biointegration of percutaneous boneanchored metallic prostheses with both hard and soft tissues dictates their longevity in the human body. While titanium (Ti) has nearly solved osseointegration, soft tissue integration of percutaneous metallic prostheses is a perennial problem. Unlike the firm soft tissue sealing in biological percutaneous structures (fingernails and teeth), foreign body response of the skin to titanium (Ti) leads to inflammation, epidermal downgrowth and inferior peri-implant soft tissue sealing. This review discusses various implant surface treatments/texturing and coatings for osseointegration, soft tissue integration, and against bacterial attachment. While surface microroughness by SLA (sandblasting with large grit and acid etched) and porous calcium phosphate (CaP) coatings improve Ti osseointegration, smooth and textured titania nanopores, nanotubes, microgrooves, and biomolecular coatings encourage soft tissue attachment. However, the inferior peri-implant soft tissue sealing compared to natural teeth can lead to peri-implantitis. Toward this end, the application of smart multifunctional bioadhesives with strong adhesion to soft tissues, mechanical resilience, durability, antibacterial, and immunomodulatory properties for soft tissue attachment to metallic prostheses is proposed.

show abstract

The effect of percutaneous and transcutaneous BAHA on hearing and subjective auditory abilities: A comparative study

Mungan Durankaya,

Olgun,

Kiremitçi

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing loss significantly affects communication, social interactions, and the overall quality of life. The bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) is an implantable system that bypasses the outer and middle ear to directly stimulate the cochlea through bone conduction. This study aimed to compare hearing performance and subjective auditory ability improvements between transcutaneous and percutaneous BAHA devices using audiological assessments and Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale. This cross-sectional prospective study included 29 participants aged 14 to 69 years who had used BAHA for at least 6 months. Both Cochlear Baha System’s percutaneous (connect) and transcutaneous (attract) implants were evaluated. Audiological assessments involved pure-tone audiometry, speech recognition threshold, and free-field (FF) audiometry, while subjective auditory ability was measured using the Turkish Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale (Tr-SSQ). Significant improvements in FF audiometry averages and speech recognition thresholds were observed with BAHA compared to without BAHA (P < .001). Both implant types provided similar FF averages, speech audiometry results, and Tr-SSQ outcomes, with no significant differences between them. Tr-SSQ scores showed substantial satisfaction, indicating significant improvements in speech perception, spatial perception, and hearing quality with BAHA (P < .001). The findings align with previous research, demonstrating that BAHA is a reliable and effective solution for hearing rehabilitation. The study also emphasized the importance of using both audiological test results and daily hearing function scales to comprehensively evaluate the benefits of hearing rehabilitation in real-world environments. In conclusion, BAHA, regardless of the implant type, can provide predictable and lasting improvements in hearing thresholds and daily hearing abilities, making it a valuable option for patients with conductive hearing loss.

show abstract

Transcutaneous versus percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: A quality of life comparison

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Comparison of Transcutaneous and Percutaneous Implantable Hearing Devices for the Management of Congenital Aural Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Transcutaneous and Percutaneous Implantable Hearing Devices for the Management of Congenital Aural Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Soft and Hard Tissue Integration around Percutaneous Bone-Anchored Titanium Prostheses: Toward Achieving Holistic Biointegration

The effect of percutaneous and transcutaneous BAHA on hearing and subjective auditory abilities: A comparative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About