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

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

A holistic biointegration of percutaneous bone-anchored 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.

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

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.