Hearing Outcomes with Percutaneous and Transcutaneous BAHA® Technology in Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

Evaluation of the Baha SoundArc in children

OBJECTIVE

The Baha SoundArc coupling system has been developed as a non-surgical coupling of a Baha sound processor to the skull allowing the transfer of vibrational energy to the cochlear partition via bone conduction pathways. Today, there are several alternatives to this non-surgical approach as the Baha headband/test band, or the Baha Softband, or adhesive patches. Each of these current options have benefits and liabilities. The aim of the study was to evaluate pediatric experience and performance when using two non-surgical options, the Baha SoundArc compared to the Baha Softband.

METHODS

Twenty-five children with unilateral mixed or conductive hearing loss aged 5-12 years of age evaluated the use of the Baha SoundArc compared to their existing Baha Softband in a one month take home trial. Participants had a minimum of 3 months experience using the control, Baha Softband. Participants were assessed at baseline and one month following fit of the Baha SoundArc. Measures included an experience and use patient reported outcome, speech perception testing in quiet using Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten (PBK) words, and sound field audiometry.

RESULTS

Mean aided soundfield thresholds across the frequency range were 27.6 dB HL for Softband and 26.0 dB HL for SoundArc, which were not significantly different (P = >.05). Mean word recognition score was 80.8% when aided with the Softband device and 85.1% with the SoundArc, which was also not significantly different (P = >.05). Most children favored the aesthetics and usability of the SoundArc over Softband, but comfort ratings were largely similar for both devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Bone conduction sound processors mounted on a SoundArc or a Softband resulted in comparable improvements in aided thresholds and speech understanding in children suffering from conductive or mixed hearing loss. Both wearing modalities can be considered equivalent in terms of audiological outcomes, although both patients and clinicians preferred the usability and aesthetics of the SoundArc. The SoundArc provides an alternative wearing option for patients that may otherwise be discouraged by the aesthetics and usability of the Softband device.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03333577.

Role of early hearing aid experience in speech recognition in patients with bilateral congenital microtia following Bonebridge implantation: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To identify audiological and demographic variables that predict speech recognition abilities in patients with bilateral microtia who underwent Bonebridge (BB) implantation.

METHODS

Fifty patients with bilateral microtia and bilateral conductive hearing loss (CHL) who underwent BB implantation were included. Demographic data, preoperative hearing aid use experience, and audiological outcomes (including pure-tone hearing threshold, sound field hearing threshold [SFHT], and speech recognition ability) for each participant were obtained. The Chinese-Mandarin Speech Test Materials were used to test speech recognition ability. The word recognition score (WRS) of disyllabic words at 65 dB SPL signals was measured before and after BB implantation in quiet and noisy conditions.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative WRS under quiet and noisy conditions was 10.44 ± 12.73% and 5.90 ± 8.76%, which was significantly improved to 86.38 ± 9.03% and 80.70 ± 11.34%, respectively, following BB fitting. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that lower preoperative SFHT suggested higher preoperative WRS under both quiet and noisy conditions. Higher age at implantation predicted higher preoperative WRS under quiet conditions. Furthermore, patients with more preoperative hearing aid experience and lower postoperative SFHT were more likely to have higher postoperative WRS under both quiet and noisy testing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first attempt to identify predictors of preoperative and postoperative speech recognition abilities in patients with bilateral microtia with BB implantation. These findings emphasize that early hearing intervention before implantation surgery, combined with appropriate postoperative fitting, contributes to optimal benefits in terms of postoperative speech recognition ability.

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.

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.

Precise selection of bone conduction hearing devices for congenital malformation of the middle and outer ear (CMMOE)

Background: No selection criteria for the four bone conduction hearing devices yet.Aims/Objectives: To compare effectiveness of four bone conduction hearing devices in patients with bilateral Congenital Malformation of the Middle and Outer Ear (CMMOE).Material and Methods: 24 Patients (25 ears) were divided into five groups: 1) Bone Anchored Hearing Aid softband (BAHA-s), 2) BAHA implant (BAHA-i nested within group 1), 3) Vibration Sound Bridge implant (VSB-i), 4) Bone Bridge implant (BB-i), and 5) Bone Conduction Hearing Aid softband (BCHA-s). One patient implanted VSB and BB. Auditory parameters were compared: 1. Communication, 2. Average Air Conduction Thresholds (ACT) of pure tone, 3. Sentence Recognition Scores in quiet (SRS-q) and noisy (SRS-n) settings. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were employed to compare the differences in ACT and SRS-q/n among the groups, a statistical significance level of P < 0.05 was applied.Results: After hearing aid usage, all 24 patients (25 ears) reached or approached the normal in communication (i.e. from difficult to smooth), average ACT and SRS-q/SRS-n (no difference among groups, p > 0 .05). However, there was the difference in the optimal frequency of ACT and the absolute value of SRS-q/SRS-n for VSB/BAHA implants was higher than that for BB and BAHA softband.Conclusions and Significance: The precise selection of the four hearing devices mainly depends on patient's hearing level, the optimal frequency of ACT and absolute values of SRS-q/SRS-n.

Hearing rehabilitation with Baha® transcutaneous and percutaneous systems

PURPOSE

Longitudinally verify the influence of auditory tonal thresholds obtained with transcutaneous and percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids on speech perception in individuals with external and/or middle ear malformation and chronic otitis media.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective, longitudinal follow-up study of 30 unilateral users of the transcutaneous and percutaneous Baha® system for the collection of secondary data on pure tone thresholds obtained through free field audiometry and sentence recognition threshold in silence and noise in conditions: without the prosthesis; at the time of activation; in the first month of use (post 1); and in the third month (post 2).

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between pure tone thresholds obtained at frequencies of 3 and 4kHz with better results for the percutaneous technique at all evaluation moments. For both systems, better performance was observed in sentence recognition in silence and in noise, with a significant difference in activation (p<0.001), but it remained stable during the other evaluation moments. The percutaneous system showed better benefit in recognizing sentences in noise only on activation (p=0.036), when compared to the transcutaneous system.

CONCLUSION

The percutaneous system provided better audibility for high frequencies; however, such audibility did not influence sentence recognition in the silent situation for both systems. For the noise situation, better responses were observed in the percutaneous system, however, the difference was not maintained over time.