Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: inside or outside the line of incision?

Auditory Rehabilitation in Single-Sided-Deafened Patients after Surgery to the Cerebellopontine Angle for Vestibular Schwannoma: What Is the Patient's Choice?

Background: Surgical resection of vestibular schwannomas (VS) can be responsible for single-sided deafness (SSD). Hearing restoration can be a challenge both for the otolaryngologist and the patient. Patients and Methods: In a retrospective series, we analyzed the charts of SSD patients operated on for VS from 2005-2021, checking which type of hearing rehabilitation was chosen. All patients who wanted a hearing restoration underwent a hearing in noise test (HINT) in a stereo auditorium with and without a bone-anchored hearing device (BAHD) worn with a headband on the deaf side. Then, they had a preimplantation one-month trial with the BAHD at home vs. contralateral routing of signal (CROS) or BiCROS (with contralateral signal amplification) hearing aids (HAs). Results: Among 52 charts of the included adult SSD patients, only 29 (56%) eventually chose a hearing rehabilitation device (14 BAHD). Only one BAHD patient required a device explantation for skin complications, but then asked for reimplantation. Another one swapped the BAHD for HAs 2.5 years after. Two patients only occasionally used their BAHD with a headband. Nine patients preferred HAs, mainly BiCROS. Their contralateral hearing was significantly less than BAHD patients (p < 0.05), and only three used their HAs every day. Conclusions: Hearing rehabilitation in SSD patients after VS surgical resection is chosen in about 50% of cases. In complement of HINT, a real-life comparative hearing trial helps patients chose the best device, with good long-term results when a BAHD is chosen. HAs are preferred when contralateral hearing is altered but are not always worn.

A Clinical Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery With a Modified Drill System for Inserting Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants

OBJECTIVE

To compare 6-months outcomes of the modified minimally invasive Ponto surgery (m-MIPS) to both the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation (LIT-TP), and original MIPS (o-MIPS) for inserting bone-anchored hearing implants (BAHIs).

STUDY DESIGN

Exploratory pilot study with one test group and two historical control groups.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

In the test group, 24 patients (25 implants) were prospectively included. Each control group comprised 25 patients (25 implants) who participated in previously conducted clinical trials.

INTERVENTIONS

The test group received a BAHI using m-MIPS. The two control groups underwent surgery using the LIT-TP and o-MIPS, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Implant survival, implant stability, and surgery-related variables were compared between the test and control groups. Soft tissue status, skin sensibility, and subjective numbness were compared between m-MIPS and LIT-TP only.

RESULTS

Implant survival was comparable between m-MIPS and LIT-TP, whereas implant stability measurements were slightly lower for m-MIPS. M-MIPS resulted in comparable adverse skin reactions and skin sensibility, significantly reduced surgical time and slightly improved subjective numbness, compared with LIT-TP. Between m-MIPS and o-MIPS, no statistically significant differences in implant survival, implant stability and surgical time were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A trend toward lower implant loss rates after m-MIPS was observed, when compared with o-MIPS. M-MIPS seems to be a good alternative to LIT-TP for inserting BAHIs, since most clinical outcomes were either comparable or slightly better for m-MIPS. Upon deciding on which technique to use, larger studies on implant survival should be performed. Furthermore, other aspects such as costs, training aspects and surgical experience should be evaluated.

Ten years of experience with the Ponto bone-anchored hearing system-A systematic literature review

Background

Bone‐anchored hearing systems (BAHSs) are widely used for hearing rehabilitation and are indicated in cases of conductive and mixed hearing loss and in single‐sided deafness. The Ponto system, that is one available option, has been on the market since 2009.

Objective of review

The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature reporting on the Ponto system, with regard to audiological and surgical outcomes and patient's quality‐of‐life scores.

Type of review

A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed database 2009‐July 2019.

Search strategy

Search term: ((osseointegrated hearing aid) OR (bone conduction implant) OR (bone anchored hearing) OR BAHA OR BAHS OR BAHI). Pre‐defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied.

Evaluation method

English‐language articles reporting original clinical data (audiological, surgical or quality‐of‐life outcomes) on the Ponto system were included.

Articles reporting on Ponto and another BAHS system where the results on Ponto constituted less than 50% of the patient population or including only results on testband or softband devices were excluded.

Results

Audiological outcomes were discussed in 20 publications. Improvement against the unaided thresholds was demonstrated. The functional improvement was on average 33.9 dB. The effective gain or remaining air‐bone gap was on average 6.7 dB. All evaluated data showed aided speech reception thresholds significantly below normal speech level. Twenty‐seven publications reported surgical and follow‐up data for the Ponto system. Implant survival was 97.7%, adverse skin reactions (Holgers ≥ 2) were 5% across visits and 15% across patients. No complications were life‐threatening, causing permanent disability/damage or requiring a hospitalisation. Five studies reported quality of life using the Glasgow benefit inventory, 98% reported an improvement when analysing the score on an individual level.

Conclusions

The outcomes of this systematic review confirm that percutaneous systems provide consistent audiological benefits and improved quality of life for patients. Further, the review demonstrates that the percutaneous systems are safe, with relatively low complication rates. Skin‐related complications are the most common complication type and are experienced by approximately one patient out of seven, or in less than one of 20 follow‐up visits.

The Cleating Stitch: An Adjunctive Technique for Percutaneous and Revision Osseointegration Screws

OBJECTIVE

The bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA) has become a widely used and successful option in treatment of conductive and mixed hearing loss, and single sided deafness. Despite improvements in technique and cosmesis, complications remain that can result in implant revision or removal. Herein we describe a unique adjunctive technique, the cleating stitch, in placement of osseointegration screws and examine its impact on complication rates.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary academic medical center.

PATIENTS

A total of 66 implants in 65 patients (35 men, 30 women) with an average age of 54 years (15-81 yr). Average follow up 10.8 months.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent BAHA implant placement by a single surgeon between April 2012 and June 2017 using the linear incision or punch techniques with soft tissue reduction and placement of a cleating stitch.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Main outcome measures include rates of revision surgery, overgrowth, extrusion, and Holgers reaction ≥2. Secondary outcome measures include associations between main outcome measures and outlying factors (obesity, smoking, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, age).

RESULTS

The overall rate of revision was 3%, rate of overgrowth 1.5%, rate of extrusion 1.5%, and Holgers reaction ≥2 10.6%. Overgrowth and extrusion both required revision. Older age was associated with decreased risk of Holgers reaction ≥2 (p = 0.03) with a hazard ratio of 0.95 (confidence interval 0.9-1.0). There were no other statistically significant associations between primary outcome measures and outlying factors.

CONCLUSION

The cleating stitch is an effective adjunctive technique in placement of osseointegration screws associated with low rates of overgrowth and overall revision surgery.

Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction

OBJECTIVES

To identify differences in skin thickening and soft tissue reactions between the linear incision technique with tissue reduction (LITT-R) and the linear incision technique with tissue preservation (LITT-P).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent the LITT-R or LITT-P between August 2005 and December 2016 at a large general teaching hospital with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included.

RESULTS

A total of 83 implants were included using the LITT-R with a median follow-up of 74.0 months. In the LITT-P cohort 58 implants were included with a median follow-up of 16.5 months. Skin thickening was seen in seven implants (8.4%) in LITT-R cohort and 11 implants (19.0%) in the LITT-P cohort in the first 2 years of follow-up (p = 0.024). Skin thickening in need of treatment was registered in 5 (6.0%), respectively, 6 (10.3%) implants (p = 0.100). Moreover, treatment was successful in all cases. A soft tissue reaction (Holgers ≥ 1) was noticed in 28 (33.7%) implants in the LITT-R group compared to 16 implants (27.6%) in the LITT-P group (p = 0.679). An adverse soft tissue reaction (Holgers ≥ 2) was registered in 16 (19.2%), respectively, 2 (3.4%) implants. This difference was significant (p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

LITT-P has a significantly higher rate of skin thickening and LITT-R has a significantly higher proportion of adverse soft tissue reactions. Nevertheless, combined with the advantages of LITT-P described in other studies, this can be advocated as the preferred technique.