Early Outcomes of a New Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant in Pediatric Patients

Early Results With the New Active Bone-Conduction Hearing Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The bone conduction implant (BCI) 602 is a new transcutaneous BCI with smaller dimensions. However, limited patient numbers restrict the statistical power and generalizability of the current studies. The present systematic review and meta-analysis summarize early audiological and medical outcomes of adult and pediatric patients implanted with the BCI 602 due to mixed or conductive hearing loss.

DATA SOURCE

Following the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, 108 studies were reviewed, and 6 (5.6%) were included in the meta-analysis.

REVIEW METHOD

The data on study and patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, and audiological test results were extracted from each article. Meta-analysis employed the fixed-effect and random-effects models to analyze the mean differences (MDs) between pre- and postoperative performances.

RESULTS

In total, 116 patients were evaluated, including 64 (55%) adult and 52 (45%) pediatric patients. No intraoperative adverse events were reported, while postoperative complications were reported in 2 (3.1%) adult and 2 (3.8%) pediatric patients. Studies consistently showed significant improvements in audiological outcomes, quality of life, and sound localization in the aided condition. In the meta-analysis, we observed a significant difference in the unaided compared to the aided condition in sound field thresholds (n = 112; MD, -27.05 dB; P < 0.01), signal-to-noise ratio (n = 96; MD, -6.35 dB; P < 0.01), and word recognition scores (n = 96; MD, 68.89%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The implantation of the BCI 602 was associated with minimal surgical complications and excellent audiological outcomes for both the pediatric and the adult cohort. Therefore, our analysis indicates a high level of safety and reliability. Further research should focus on direct comparisons with other BCIs and long-term functional outcomes.

Surgical Outcomes of Modified Technique for Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Aid Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To detail a modified surgical technique for implantation of the Osia 2 Bone Conduction Hearing Aid (BCHA) system and to assess intra- and postoperative outcomes of this technique.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for cases undergoing implantation of an Osia 2 BCHA at a tertiary academic medical center. Modifications were made to the surgical procedure including: horizontal or curvilinear incisions, placement of the osseointegrated screw slightly superior to the plane of the external auditory canal, and double layer wound closure. Data regarding outcomes including demographics, incision type, surgical time, drilling requirements, and complications were collected using the electronic medical record.

RESULTS

A total of twenty-eight cases were evaluated with 57.1% and 42.9% utilizing horizontal and curved incisions, respectively. The median age for recipients was 43.1 years with six pediatric cases included in the study. Median operative time was 58 min (43-126 min). The majority of cases required minimal (60.7%) or no drilling (28.6%) with a significant increase in operative time for those requiring moderate drilling versus minimal to no drilling (F = 8.02, p = 0.002). There were no intraoperative complications. One (3.6%) postoperative seroma occurred which resolved with conservative management.

CONCLUSION

The proposed modified surgical technique is a safe and effective method for implantation of the transcutaneous BCHA system with a low complication rate. Keys include incision design, implant placement, and two-layered closure to minimize wound tension. These modifications can improve ease of the procedure and reduce operative time. These techniques also appear to be applicable to the pediatric population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:2401-2404, 2024.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of a New Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to quantify the pooled functional gain (FG) in different types of hearing loss with the transcutaneous hearing device, Osia (Cochlear, Sydney, Australia) in comparison with the unaided state. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and complication rates.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, PROSPERO and Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of indexed search terms relating to "Osia," "Osseointegration," "Cochlear Implant," and "Bone-Anchored Prosthesis" was performed from database inception to September 20, 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 168 studies identified, 14 studies with 15 patient cohorts (n = 314) met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Pooled overall mean FG for all types of hearing loss was 35.0 dB sound pressure level (SPL) (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.12-40.97) compared against unaided hearing. Pooled FG for conductive/mixed hearing loss was 37.7 dB SPL (95% CI 26.1-49.3). Pooled single-sided deafness (SSD) FG could not be calculated due to the small patient cohort for whom SSD data was reported. There is a trend toward improvements in speech receptiveness threshold, signal to noise ratio, and some PROMs compared with baseline hearing. Early complication rates demonstrate risks similar to other transcutaneous implants, with a low predicted explantation (0.11%, 95% CI 0.00%-1.90%) and wound infection rate (1.92% [95% CI 0.00%-6.17%]). No articles directly comparing transcutaneous devices were identified.

CONCLUSION

The Osia devices demonstrate clear audiologic benefits and a good safety profile for the included patient population. Our study results indicate that frequency-specific gain, PROMs, and the audiological benefit in single-sided deafness may be areas for future prospective research. Laryngoscope, 134:1531-1539, 2024.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifact Associated With Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implants: Cholesteatoma and Vestibular Schwannoma Surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the magnetic resonance (MR) image artifact and image distortion associated with the two transcutaneous bone conduction implants currently available in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

METHODS

Two cadaveric head specimens (1 male, 1 female) were unilaterally implanted according to manufacturer guidelines and underwent MR imaging (General Electric and Siemens 1.5 T scanners) under the following device conditions: (1) no device, (2) Cochlear Osia with magnet and headwrap, (3) Cochlear Osia without magnet, and (4) MED-EL Bonebridge with magnet. Maximum metal mitigation techniques were employed in all conditions, and identical sequences were obtained. Blinded image scoring (diagnostic vs nondiagnostic image) was performed by experienced neuroradiologists according to anatomical subsites.

RESULTS

All device conditions produced artifact and image distortion. The Osia with magnet produced diagnostic T1- and T2-weighted images of the ipsilateral temporal bone, however, non-echo planar imaging diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was nondiagnostic. The Osia without magnet scanned on the Siemens MR imaging demonstrated the least amount of artifact and was the only condition that allowed for diagnostic imaging of the ipsilateral temporal bone on DWI. The Bonebridge produced a large area of artifact and distortion with the involvement of the ipsilateral and contralateral temporal bones.

CONCLUSION

In summary, of the three device conditions (Osia with magnet, Osia without magnet, and Bonebridge), Osia without magnet offered the least amount of artifact and distortion and was the only condition in which diagnostic DWI was available for the middle ear and mastoid regions on the Siemens MR imaging scanner.

A comparative study of audiological outcomes and compliance between the Osia system and other bone conduction hearing implants

PURPOSE

To examine the subjective and objective audiological benefits of the Osia system compared to devices commonly implanted prior to the introduction of this system.

METHODS

Osia recipients with either conductive hearing loss (CHL/MHL) (n = 9) or single-sided deafness (SSD) (n = 8) who underwent surgery from February 2021 to March 2022 were prospectively recruited. The audiological outcomes and usage rate of Osia implantees were compared with those of retrospectively recruited patients implanted with other devices (n = 50). The subjective satisfaction of the Osia implantees was also evaluated through questionnaires.

RESULTS

All users of the Osia system were classified as regular users. In the CHL/MHL group, the effective gain of the Osia system (11.1 ± 14.9 dB) surpassed that of the Baha and Bonebridge (- 2.7 ± 12.6 dB) at 2 kHz (p = 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test). Among the devices, the Osia system tended to tolerate the worst bone conduction thresholds, up to the level of 61 dB. In the SSD group, the functional gain of Osia at 4 kHz (37.5 ± 3.1 dB) was higher than that of the Baha and Bonebridge group (26.9 ± 3.0 dB) (p = 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

CONCLUSION

The Osia system yielded larger audiological gain than the Baha Attract and Bonebridge devices, especially at high frequencies, leading to substantially higher compliance. The Osia system tended to have the strongest tolerance to aggravated bone conduction thresholds among the available transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants. Therefore, the Osia system could potentially be a good option for CHL/MHL patients with bone conduction thresholds of 50 dB HL or more, as well as patients with SSD.

How I do it: Cochlear Osia 2 System surgery placement

BACKGROUND

The Cochlear™ Osia^® 2 System is an active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant with a newly developed piezoelectric transducer that is fixed to a titanium implant (BI300).

METHODS

It uses digital piezoelectric stimulation to bypass non-functional areas of the natural hearing system and send sound directly to the cochlea. This device is designed to meet the needs of patients with unilateral and bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss and single-sided deafness.

CONCLUSION

We show step by step how to place the new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant, Cochlear™ Osia^® 2 System, which utilizes a piezoelectric actuator anchored to the mastoid bone through an osseointegrated screw.

Subtemporalis Muscle Middle Cranial Fossa Bone-Island Craniotomy Technique for Placement of an Active Transcutaneous Bone-Conduction Implant

OBJECTIVE

Placement of an active transcutaneous bone-conduction implant (BCI) requires drilling of a precise bone bed to accommodate the device and allow for fixation points to make appropriate contact with bone, which can be difficult even when lifts are used. We describe a subtemporalis muscle middle cranial fossa bone-island craniotomy technique that simplifies the procedure and obviates the need for lifts in securing the device.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case series.

SETTING

Tertiary academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Seventeen patients underwent surgery for placement of 18 transcutaneous BCIs, 14 for conductive or mixed hearing loss, and 4 for single-sided deafness.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical placement of a transcutaneous BCI with a bone-island craniotomy technique.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Functional gain in air-conduction thresholds, aided air-bone gap, frequency of need for lifts, and minor and major complications.

RESULTS

For the conductive or mixed hearing loss cohort, with the transcutaneous BCI in place, there was a highly statistically significant mean functional gain of 35.4 dB hearing level (HL) (range, 16.7-50.25 dB HL; standard deviation, 12.4 dB HL) compared with the unaided condition (p < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval, 36.6-51.6 dB HL). Lifts were not needed in any case. There was one minor complication requiring a second procedure in a patient who had previously received radiation and no major complications. There was no device loss or failure.

CONCLUSIONS

A subtemporalis muscle middle cranial fossa bone-island craniotomy technique eliminates the need for lifts and is a safe and effective method for placement of a transcutaneous BCI.

Integrated microtia and aural atresia management

Objectives

To present recommendations for the coordinated evaluation and management of the hearing and reconstructive needs of patients with microtia and aural atresia.

Methods

A national working group of 9 experts on microtia and atresia evaluated a working document on the evaluation and treatment of patients. Treatment options for auricular reconstruction and hearing habilitation were reviewed and integrated into a coordinated care timeline.

Results

Recommendations were created for children with microtia and atresia, including diagnostic considerations, surgical and non-surgical options for hearing management and auricular reconstruction, and the treatment timeline for each option. These recommendations are based on the collective opinion of the group and are intended for otolaryngologists, audiologists, plastic surgeons, anaplastologists, and any provider caring for a patient with microtia and ear canal atresia. Close communication between atresia/hearing reconstruction surgeon and microtia repair surgeon is strongly recommended.

Initial Experience With Two Active Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants

OBJECTIVE

To analyze our institutional experience with two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic otology-neurotology practice.

PATIENTS

Patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses meeting criteria to receive active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.

INTERVENTIONS

Implantation with one of two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, dural exposure and decompression, use of lifts, implant position, ease of use, qualitative patient satisfaction, complication rates.

RESULTS

Ten patients received Implant 1 and 11 patients received Implant 2. The most common underlying etiologies of hearing loss were chronic suppurative otitis media in 33.3%, atresia/microtia in 23.8%, and cholesteatoma in 23.8%. Average operative times were 99.3 minutes for Implant 1 and 80.9 minutes for Implant 2 ( p = 0.263). Implant 1 required lifts in 60%, dural exposure in 50%, and dural compression in 30%. Overall, placement was difficult in 47.6% of cases. There were no intraoperative complications. There were higher rates of issues with sound quality (27.3% versus 0.0%, p = 0.123) and poor cosmesis (36.4% versus 10.0%, p = 0.360) with Implant 2. Functional gain was not recorded, but all patients derived qualitative benefit from their implant. Three patients had local wound complications that self-resolved or were treated with antibiotics. One patient implanted at an outside institution required explant because of multiple infections.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes comparing Implants 1 and 2; however, Implant 2 had much higher rates of issues with audio quality and poor cosmesis. Placing Implant 1 often required special techniques.