Digital processing technology for bone-anchored hearing aids: randomised comparison of two devices in hearing aid users with mixed or conductive hearing loss

Psychosocial outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment: An overview of the relevant literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify the psychosocial assessments utilized with individuals with conductive and/or mixed hearing loss as part of a broader effort by the Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (AURONET) group to develop a core set of patient-centred outcome measures.

DESIGN

A review of articles published between 2006 and 2016 was completed. Included studies had more than three adult participants, were available in English, and reported a psychosocial outcome from any treatment of mixed and/or conductive hearing loss.

STUDY SAMPLE

Sixty-six articles from seven databases.

RESULTS

Sixty-six articles met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Within this set, 15 unique psychosocial or patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) were identified, with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) being the most frequently dispensed. Five of the fifteen were only administered in one study. In-house questionnaires (IHQs) were reported in 19 articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 66 (22%) of the 300 articles with outcomes contained a PRO. Some of the mostly frequently employed PROs (e.g., APHAB) were judged to include only social items and no psychological items. Lack of PRO standardization and the use of IHQs make psychosocial comparisons across treatments in this population difficult for patients, clinicians and stakeholders.

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.

Comparison of two different bone anchored hearing instruments: Baha-5 vs Ponto-plus

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, there is no study comparing Ponto Plus^® (Oticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden) and Baha^® 5 (Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AG, Mölnlycke, Sweden) available in the literature.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to compare the performance of the Baha 5 with the Ponto Plus device in terms of speech understanding in quiet and in noise. In addition, to determine statistically whether or not the difference between the abutment systems created any variation in terms of skin reaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty bone-anchored hearing instrument users, ten in each group, were evaluated for speech understanding in quiet and several signal-to-noise ratios using the Turkish Matrix Test in a two-speaker setup. The Holger classifications were also reviewed to determine adverse skin reactions.

RESULTS

It was revealed that the hearing results of both devices were similar and, when the skin reactions were compared, there was no statistically significant difference between the two-implant systems.

CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE

Because of the similar results of the groups, it can be interpreted as the key different device features such as the size, weight, colour alternatives, and the ease of use of the devices might be important in terms of device preference.