Passive Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants: A Systematic Review

Efficacy of the Bonebridge BCI602 for Adult Patients with Single-sided Deafness: A Prospective Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of a novel active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (BCI) device for patients with single-sided deafness (SSD).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospitals.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study was conducted at 15 institutions nationwide. Thirty adult (aged ≥19 years) SSD patients were recruited. They underwent implantation of an active transcutaneous BCI device (Bonebridge BCI602). Objective outcomes included aided pure-tone thresholds, aided speech discrimination scores (SDSs), and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and sound localization test results. The Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness (BBSS) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) were used to measure subjective benefits.

RESULTS

The mean aided pure-tone threshold was 34.2 (11.3), mean (SD), dB HL at 500 to 4000 Hz. The mean total BBSS score was 27.5 (13.8). All APHAB questionnaire domain scores showed significant improvements: ease of communication, 33.6 (23.2) versus 22.6 (21.3), P = .025; reverberation, 44.8 (16.6) versus 32.8 (15.9), P = .002; background noise, 55.5 (23.6) versus 35.2 (18.1), P < .001; and aversiveness, 36.7 (22.8) versus 25.8 (21.4), P = .028. Moreover, the THI scores were significantly reduced [47.4 (30.1) versus 31.1 (27.0), P = .003]. Congenital SSD was a significant factor of subjective benefit (-11.643; 95% confidence interval: -21.946 to -1.340).

CONCLUSION

The BCI602 active transcutaneous BCI device can provide functional hearing gain without any adverse effects and is a feasible option for acquired SSD patients with long-term deafness.

Audiological assessment with Matrix sentence test of percutaneous vs transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The study evaluated if there were differences between two types of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA), percutaneous vs transcutaneous implants in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes.

METHODS

Eleven patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss in the implanted ear with a bone conduction pure-tone average (BC PTA) of the hearing threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz ≤ 55 dB HL, aged > 5 years. Patients were assigned to two groups: percutaneous implant (BAHA Connect) and transcutaneous implant (BAHA Attract). Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by the implant, and the variation in the quality of life after the surgery.

RESULTS

No differences were found comparing the data of Matrix SRT. APHAB and GBI questionnaires did not show a statistically significant difference comparing each subscale and the global score. The comparison of scores obtained from the SADL questionnaire demonstrated a difference in the "Personal Image" subscale with a better score for the transcutaneous implant. Furthermore, the Global Score of the SADL questionnaire was statistically different between groups. Other subscales did not show any significant difference. A Spearman's ρ correlation test was used to evaluate if the age could influence the SRT results; no correlation was found between age and SRT. Furthermore, the same test was used to confirm a negative correlation between SRT and the global benefit of the APHAB questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The current research confirms the absence of statistically significant differences comparing percutaneous and transcutaneous implants. The Matrix sentence test has shown the comparability of the two implants in the speech-in-noise intelligibility. Actually, the choice of the implant type can be done according to the patient's personal needs, the surgeon's experience, and the patient anatomy.

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

First Generation Osseointegrated Steady State Implant Benefits in Children With Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

To assess outcomes of a new Osseointegrated Steady State Implant (OSSI) for bone conduction in adolescents.

METHOD

In an initial trial, 14 adolescents (14.5 years of age, SD = 2.22) were provided with an OSSI; unilateral OSSI (n = 13), bilateral OSSI in sequential surgeries (n = 1). Outcomes measured were surgical duration, complications, hearing thresholds, speech perception and self-reported hearing benefits using the Speech and Spatial Quality of Hearing Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The surgical times were mean 93.6 minutes (SD = 33.3). Surgery was slightly longer in three adolescents who required skin flap reduction (n = 1) or significant bone polishing (n = 2) (121.33 minutes, SD = 8.14). Adverse events occurred in two adolescents post-implant poor external device retention in one child requiring revision flap reduction and inflammation at the incision site due to magnet overuse in another. The "Digital Link Calibration" measure was a good proxy predictor of the strength of magnet required for external device adherence (p = 0.002). The OSSI increased audibility in the implanted ear by mean 31.48 dB HL (SE = 1.58). Aided thresholds were best at 1 kHz (mean 25.33 dB HL, SD = 22.60) and only slightly poorer at 3000 and 4000 Hz (estimate decrease = 8.33 dB HL, SE = 3.54), reflecting good auditory sensitivity even at high frequencies. Speech perception when using the new device alone was good (89.67%, SD = 7.84%) and self-reported hearing by participants and parents improved in all domains assessed by the Speech and Spatial Quality of Hearing Questionnaire (estimate = 1.90 points, SE = 0.25, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The OSSI provides hearing benefits with surgical safety in a carefully selected cohort of adolescents.

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.

Active Versus Passive Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Active and passive transcutaneous devices (tBCHDs) have been introduced in an effort to address complication concerns with percutaneous devices. Direct comparison of active and passive devices through evidence synthesis practices is incomplete. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to synthesize and compare available evidence on audiological, quality of life, and complication-related outcomes of active and passive tBCHDs.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to September 23, 2019. Observational and experimental studies investigating active or passive tBCHDs in adults were eligible. Studies were screened independently in duplicate. This study is reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias and quality assessments were completed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Quality Appraisal Tool for Case Series. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models. Audiological outcomes included changes in pure-tone average, functional hearing, and high-frequency hearing. Quality of life outcomes included patient-reported results. Complications included minor, major, and total complications experienced.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred forty-two nonduplicate articles were screened. Twenty-eight studies were included. Quality of included studies was low overall. The pooled complication rate for active devices was 14.8% (95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.21, I2: 0%). The pooled improvement in functional hearing for active devices among those with mixed or conductive hearing loss was 31.8 dB (95% confidence interval: 27.7-35.9, I2: 44.6). Improvement in functional hearing ranged from 25.2 to 44.3 dB for passive devices. Active devices provided improved high-frequency hearing compared to passive devices: the weighted average hearing gains at 2, 3, 4, and 6 kHz were 26.5, 25.7, 31.8, and 34.3 dB for active devices and 26.2, 21.1, 16.8, and 6.4 dB for passive devices, respectively. Both device types demonstrated improvement in ease of communication, reverberation, and understandability in background noise.

CONCLUSIONS

Both active and passive tBCHDs demonstrate acceptable safety profiles and QoL improvements. Active devices may provide better hearing outcomes, especially in high frequencies, but high-quality comparative studies are lacking. Future work is needed in this regard.

Review of Bone Conduction Hearing Devices

Bone conduction is an efficient pathway of sound transmission which can be harnessed to provide hearing amplification. Bone conduction hearing devices may be indicated when ear canal pathology precludes the use of a conventional hearing aid, as well as in cases of single-sided deafness. Several different technologies exist which transmit sound via bone conduction. Here, we will review the physiology of bone conduction, the indications for bone conduction amplification, and the specifics of currently available devices.

Multicenter Clinical Investigation of a New Active Osseointegrated Steady-State Implant System

Objective:

A new active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant system that uses piezoelectric technology has been developed: an active osseointegrated steady-state implant system (OSI). This was the first clinical investigation undertaken to demonstrate clinical performance, safety, and benefit of the new implant system.

Study Design and Setting:

A multicenter prospective within-subject clinical investigation was conducted.

Patients:

Fifty-one adult subjects with mixed and conductive hearing loss (MHL/CHL, n = 37) and single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD, n = 14) were included.

Main Outcome Measure:

Audiological evaluations included audiometric thresholds, speech recognition in noise, and quiet. Hearing and health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs; health utilities index [HUI], abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit [APHAB], and speech, spatial of qualities of hearing scale [SSQ]), daily use, surgical and safety parameters were collected.

Results:

Intra- and postoperative complications were few. One implant was removed before activation due to post-surgical infection. Compared with the preoperative softband tests, a significant improvement in speech recognition-in-noise was observed in the MHL/CHL group (–7.3 dB, p ≤ 0.0001) and the SSD group (–8.1 dB, p = 0.0008). In quiet, word recognition improved in the MHL/CHL group, most markedly at lower intensity input of 50 dB SPL (26.7%, p ≤ 0.0001). The results of all PROs showed a significant improvement with the new device compared with preoperative softband in the MHL/CHL group. In the SSD group significant improvements were observed in the APHAB and SSQ questionnaires.

Discussion:

The results confirmed the clinical safety, performance, and benefit of this new treatment modality for subjects with CHL, MHL, and SSD.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery vs. Linear Incision Technique With Soft Tissue Preservation for Installation of Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices

Objective: Comparing the surgical outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique with the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation (LITT-P) for bone conduction devices after a follow-up of 22 months.

Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, there was the inclusion of 64 adult patients eligible for unilateral surgery. There was 1:1 randomization to the MIPS (test) or the LITT-P (control) group. The primary outcome was an (adverse) soft tissue reaction. Secondary outcomes were pain, loss of sensibility, soft tissue height/overgrowth, skin sagging, implant loss, Implant Stability Quotient measurements, cosmetic scores, and quality of life questionnaires.

Results: Sixty-three subjects were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. No differences were found in the presence of (adverse) soft tissue reactions during complete follow-up. Also, there were no differences in pain, wound dehiscence, skin level, soft tissue overgrowth, and overall quality of life. Loss of sensibility (until 3-month post-surgery), cosmetic scores, and skin sagging outcomes were better in the MIPS group. The Implant Stability Quotient was higher after the LITT-P for different abutment lengths at various points of follow-up. Implant extrusion was nonsignificantly higher after the MIPS (15.2%) compared with LITT-P (3.3%).

Conclusion: The long-term results show favorable outcomes for both techniques. The MIPS is a promising technique with some benefits over the LITT-P. Concerns regarding nonsignificantly higher implant loss may be overcome with future developments and research.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02438618.

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.

A comparison study of audiological outcome and compliance of bone conduction implantable hearing implants

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the outcome of different bone conduction hearing implants (BCHIs) in subjects with mixed hearing loss (MHL) and single-sided deafness (SSD) in terms of audiometric results and compliance.

METHODS

Twenty-one subjects with MHL and 18 subjects with SSD undergoing implantation of Baha connect, Baha attract, or Bonebridge were enrolled. Functional gain, effective gain, and usage rate of BCHIs were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

As for MHL, the functional gain of three devices was not significantly different (p = 0.477), while the effective gain of Bonebridge was higher (- 8.8 [- 15.0, - 3.5] dB) than that of Baha connect (- 20.0 [- 26.3, - 11.3] dB, p = 0.037), especially at 0.5 kHz (p = 0.010) and 1 kHz (p = 0.014). In SSD subjects, the effective gain of Bonebridge was significantly higher than that of Baha attract (- 11.3 [- 15.0, - 7.5] vs - 21.3 [- 21.3, - 16.3] dB, p = 0.012), while the functional gain of Bonebridge and Baha attract was not different. The constant usage rate of BCHIs tends to be higher in MHL subjects [17/21 (82%)] than that in SSD subjects [10/18 (56%)]. In SSD subjects, the constant user group showed higher functional gain than the non-constant user group, with a significant difference at 3 kHz (35.0 [33.8, 45.0] vs 17.5 [10.0, 27.5] dB, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Bonebridge shows a higher effective gain than Baha connect in the MHL group and Baha attract in the SSD group. The usage rate of BCHIs is lower in SSD than that in MHL. In SSD subjects, the constant user group tended to show higher functional gain than the non-constant user group. Irrespective of the device type, the tendency of higher functional gain of BCHIs, especially at mid frequencies, may potentially lead to yield good compliance in SSD, mandating a meticulous fitting strategy ensuring a sufficient mid-frequency functional gain in SSD.

Minimal invasive pocket technique for magnet bone implant hearing aid without fixation

Introduction

The BAHA (bone-anchored hearing aid) Attract is a magnetic transcutaneous bone conduction device anchored into the temporal bone. The standard surgical technique for BAHA Attract is a multi-tools time-consuming process, which requires a large cutaneous incision. The objective of this study is to describe and test the feasibility of a minimally invasive pocket (MIP) technique for Magnet Bone Implant Hearing Aid (MBIHA) with a modified magnet of BAHA Attract without fixation and without any tissue reduction. We use a 3-cm vertical skin incision and a subperiosteal pocket.

Method

A study of 10 patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss who benefited from a MBIHA using the MIP technique is presented. The pure tone average (PTA) (dB) for air-conduction thresholds and the speech recognition threshold (SRT) (dB) in speech audiometry in quiet are calculated. The Entific Medical Systems (EMS) questionnaire and the postoperative clinical outcomes are realized.

Results

We found a significant improvement of 33.8 dB on average for the PTA and 44.8 dB for the SRT with MBIHA at 3 months, compared with unaided situation. No implant was removed or displaced after 2 years of follow-up. The skin condition remains intact in all the cases.

Conclusion

The minimally subperiosteal pocket surgical technique MIP without fixation and with tissue preservation for the MBIHA is safe, rapid and effective for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. It opens new perspectives of development and modify conventional concept in magnetic coupling of bone-conducted device.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00405-019-05746-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.