A functional and anatomical comparison between two passive transcutaneous bone conduction implants in children

Comparison of Quality of Life Outcomes for Percutaneous Versus Transcutaneous Implantable Hearing Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare quality of life (QOL) outcomes of percutaneous and transcutaneous bone conduction devices (pBCD and tBCD, respectively).

DATABASES REVIEWED

Pubmed, Scopus, CINAHL.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed searching for English language articles from inception to March 15, 2023. Studies reporting QOL outcomes measured using a validated tool following implantation of either pBCDs or tBCDs were considered for inclusion. QOL outcomes included scores for Glasgow Benefit Inventory, Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale. A meta-analysis of continuous measures was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 52 articles with 1,469 patients were included. Six hundred eighty-nine patients were implanted with pBCDs, and the remaining 780 were implanted with tBCDs. Average Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores for the tBCD group (33.0, 95% confidence interval [22.7-43.3]) were significantly higher than the pBCD group (30.9 [25.2-36.6]) (Δ2.1 [1.4-2.8], p < 0.0001). Mean Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory scores (Δ3.9 [2.0-5.8], p = 0.0001) and mean gain in Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit scores (Δ5.6 [4.8-6.4], p < 0.0001) were significantly higher among patients implanted with tBCDs than those implanted with pBCDs. Patients implanted with tBCDs also had significantly higher gains on the Speech (Δ1.1 [0.9-1.3], p < 0.0001), Spatial (Δ0.8 [0.7-0.9], p < 0.0001), and Qualities of Hearing (Δ1.2 [1.1-1.3], p < 0.0001) portions of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale than those implanted with pBCDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients implanted with transcutaneous devices had better QOL outcomes than those implanted with percutaneous devices.

Bone-anchored hearing aids: Percutaneous versus transcutaneous attachments - a health economics comparison in paediatric patients

INTRODUCTION

Bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA) are a useful support when conventional hearing aids are not suitable. The two types of attachment of the aid are onto a percutaneous abutment or a transcutaneous magnet. Anecdotally, the abutment requires more care, revision procedures and causes more infections than magnet-based devices.

METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective review was conducted of all patients that underwent a BAHA since our programme began, identified through a prospectively maintained database of patients. Patients' charts were audited for outpatient clinic visits, skin complications and revision surgeries. Developmental delay was also recorded. Patients were censored if the hearing aid was removed, replaced or the patient reached 16 years old. Bilateral or reimplanted patients were recorded as separate implants. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4.

RESULTS

150 implants were assessed over 126 patients: 115 transcutaneous and 35 percutaneous. Percutaneous patients had significantly more outpatient clinic attendances (Least square mean 4.19 vs. 1.39 p = 0.00), skin complications (mean 4.82 v 0.11 p = 0.00) and theatre visits (mean 2.8 vs. 1.03 p = 0.00) compared to transcutaneous patients. 77 implants were in patients that had developmental delay; having same made no significant difference to above outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant difference in healthcare burden between percutaneous and transcutaneous systems in a paediatric population. The increased cost of the percutaneous implant to the healthcare system and inconvenience to the patient is cause to consider a transcutaneous system in the first instance.

Comparison of passive versus active transcutaneous bone anchored hearing devices in the pediatric population

Objective

Transcutaneous bone anchored hearing devices (BAHDs) were introduced in an effort to avoid potential complications associated with the abutment of percutaneous BAHDs. Transcutaneous BAHDs can be active or passive. While studies have demonstrated good outcomes with both, a direct comparison of audiological and clinical outcomes of these devices in the pediatric population has not yet been studied.

Study design

Retrospective, multicenter study.

Setting

Two tertiary academic centers.

Methods

Between 2015 and 2019, all patients who received an active transcutaneous BAHD (Bonebridge, BB) at one center, and patients that received a passive transcutaneous BAHD (Attract, AT) at another center, were included in this study. Exclusion criteria included age > 18 years, and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. Study outcomes included patient demographics, indications, complications and preoperative and one-year postoperative audiometric data.

Results

Eighteen BB and eight AT patients met the inclusion criteria. The age range was 5–16 years. There were no significant differences in complication outcomes. Both devices demonstrated similar mean improvements in hearing thresholds at frequencies of 250 Hz (38 dB Active vs. 38 dB Passive), 500 Hz (34 dB vs. 42 dB), 1000 Hz (34 dB vs. 40 dB) and 2000 Hz (31 dB vs. 22 dB). The BB was significantly more effective at frequencies of 4000 Hz (28 dB vs. 7 dB) and 8000 Hz (29 dB vs. 6 dB) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This is the first study comparing audiological outcomes between an active and a passive transcutaneous BAHD in the pediatric population. While both devices improved audiometric outcomes in the low and mid frequencies, the active BAHD demonstrated significantly better outcomes in the higher frequencies.

Graphical Abstract

Transcutaneous Osseo-integrated Auditory Devices: Analysis of Two Different Implants in Adults With Different Audiological Inclusion Criteria

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare audiological and speech/language discrimination results in patients with osteo-integrated auditory devices, by comparing two different systems including different audiological indications in adult population.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive and analytic, cross-sectional, cohort, and retrospective case review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients >14 years old, with conductive, mixed, or unilateral sensorineural hearing loss were compared. The variables studied were the following: pure tone audiometry results, air-bone gap, and the percentage of speech/language discrimination using Disyllabic Word Test. The patients were tested preoperative and 12 months after surgical procedure. Subsequently, a comparative analysis of the both systems was carried out.

RESULTS

With both implants, pure tone audiometry results and the difference in auditory thresholds and between the air-bone gap improved significantly. Speech discrimination increased significantly after implantation too. A significant difference was observed after implantation of both devices. Patients implanted with one of the implants showed better audiological results, but no significant differences were found with the other device. So, it was shown that the type of device and the type of hearing loss have no influence on the audiological results or complications.

CONCLUSION

Both implants represent a good choice for audiological rehabilitation in patients with transmissive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, or unilateral sensorineural hearing loss with a high success and low complication rates.

Endoscopic-assisted pediatric transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant: how I do it

BACKGROUND

Conventional technique for transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implants surgery requires the elevation of a large retroauricular skin flap to expose the site of implantation, that may cause a large scar and the interruption of retroauricular vasculature.

METHODS

A less invasive, endoscopic-assisted modification of the surgical technique is described, which provides access to the implant site through two small skin incisions and the creation of a pocket in the retroauricular area.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic-assisted bone-anchored hearing implant surgery could be a viable option for transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery, especially for pediatric patients.

Outcomes of BAHA connect vs BAHA attract in pediatric patients

INTRODUCTION

Two of the most commonly employed bone-anchored hearing implant (BAHI) systems are the BAHA Connect and BAHA Attract. The BAHA Connect uses a skin-penetrating titanium abutment. The BAHA Attract uses an implanted magnet, leaving the overlying skin intact. Limited data is available on the difference in complication rates between the two systems. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in complications and audiologic data.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of patients who had BAHA Connect vs. Attract at our tertiary care pediatric hospital from 2006 to 2018. Pre- and post-operative information, including demographics, related diagnoses, outcomes and complications were compared between the systems using Mann-Whitney U tests and Firth logistic regression for one year post-implant. Audiology data was analyzed with Wilcoxon rank-sum and Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank tests.

RESULTS

Twenty-four Attract and 18 Connect BAHA surgeries were identified from 37 patients. Eleven Connect patients had the surgery completed in two stages. Connect patients followed up an average of 6.5 years post-implant and 15 months for Attract. A total of 58.8% of patients with Connect surgeries had complications within a year and 82.4% had a complication by their last follow-up. Aside from magnet strength related issues, there were no major complications with Attract surgery at any time point. Patients with Connect surgeries had significantly more skin overgrowths, cultured infections, times on antibiotics, nursing phone calls, and ENT visits within the first year and for all records, p < .05. The pure-tone average was significantly lower for both Connect [unaided-M(SD) = 61.7(9.8); aided-M(SD) = 26.4(5.5) and Attract (unaided-M(SD) = 66.0(22.5); aided-M(SD) = 25.6(6.1)] after implant, p < .001.

CONCLUSION

Implantation of both systems lead to improved hearing outcomes with profoundly different complication rates.

First Pediatric Experience With a Novel, Adhesive Adapter Retained, Bone Conduction Hearing Aid System

OBJECTIVES

To assess the audiological outcomes, practicalities, and impact on quality of life of a new, nonimplantable, adhesive retained bone conduction hearing aid in children.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, single-subject repeat measure, cohort study.

SETTING

Community and in pediatric assessment center.

PATIENTS

Twenty-one children aged between 5 and 15 years with a conductive hearing loss of >/=25 dB HL in the better hearing ear.

INTERVENTION

Audiological comparisons were made using pure-tone thresholds; unaided, with a softband aid, and with the new adhesive retained bone conducting system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of hearing threshold levels. Data analysis via paired t-testing, significance set at p value <0.01. Quality of life was assessed via the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory and a 10 cm linear analogue scale. A hearing aid review questionnaire provided insight into practical use.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvement in thresholds of 7.3 dB HL (p=0.0001) was demonstrated with the adhesive system as compared with softband aids. After 4 weeks of usage, the mean hearing thresholds for the adhesive hearing system improved from 55 dB HL ± 2.4 to 31 dB HL± 7.9 in unaided and aided conditions.Improvements in QOL were demonstrated with LAS and GCBI. Four children reported mild skin reactions. Eighty-six percent reported improved self-confidence.

CONCLUSION

The adhesive aid produces comparable audiological results to the commercial softband hearing aids. It provides an excellent alternative in the treatment of conductive hearing loss without the possible complications and costs of a surgical intervention. Furthermore, it preserves skin envelope over the mastoid for those who wish to proceed with an autologous pinna reconstruction in the future.

The Bonebridge in Adults with Mixed and Conductive Hearing Loss: Audiological and Quality of Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Considering that hearing loss has a significant impact on social functioning, everyday activity and a person's emotional state, one of the most important goals of hearing rehabilitation with bone conduction devices is improvement in a patient's quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To measure self-assessed quality of life in patients implanted with the Bonebridge, a bone conduction device.

METHOD

Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with one treatment group. Twenty-one patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss were included, and each individual served as its own control. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to measure patient-reported quality of life before intervention and at 3 and 6 months after activation of the device. At the same time frames, pure-tone audiometry and speech understanding in quiet and in noise were tested.

RESULTS

Hearing-specific quality of life increased significantly after intervention and remained stable up to 6 months. Both word recognition in quiet and speech reception threshold in noise were significantly better after 6 months compared to before surgery. Outcomes of aided speech understanding were independent of initial bone conduction thresholds and equally high (word recognition score >75%) across the device's indication range.

CONCLUSIONS

The Bonebridge provides not only significant audiological benefit in both speech understanding in quiet and in noise, but also increases self-perceived quality of life in patients suffering from mixed and conductive hearing loss. Together with a very low rate and minor nature of adverse events, it is the state-of-the-art solution for hearing rehabilitation in patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss up to a bone conduction threshold of 45 dB HL.