Implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 after Mastoid Obliteration with S53P4 Bioactive Glass: A Safe Method of Treating Difficult Anatomical Conditions-Preliminary Results

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.

Experience With the New Active Transcutaneous Bone-Conduction Implant With Smaller Dimensions

OBJECTIVE

Recently, the Bonebridge 602 implant was introduced. Its smaller dimensions facilitate implantation even in surgically demanding cases. However, in extreme anatomical conditions, implant lifts are still required. We intended to report on the medical and audiological outcomes of all patients implanted with the implant with a secondary focus on the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of the use of 1-mm lifts.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients implanted with the Bonebridge 602. Patient demographics and surgically-specific data were collected from the medical charts. Furthermore, audiological results were assessed. Outcomes were compared between implantations with versus without lifts.

RESULTS

Twenty-one devices were implanted during the study period. Satisfactory audiological results were observed, while no intra- or postoperative adverse events occurred. The majority of patients were daily users at the end of the observation period (n = 20/21, 95.2%), and one patient (n = 1/21, 4.8%) was a nonuser after 6 months of use because of subjective dissatisfaction. Due to anatomical considerations, 1-mm lifts were used in 4 implantations (19.0%). The application of lifts did not result in prolonged surgical times, complications, or shorter time of use, nor did it negatively affect audiometric results.

CONCLUSION

Implantations with the new and smaller Bonebridge were associated with gratifying medical and audiological outcomes. Still, in extreme anatomical conditions, 1-mm lifts are necessary. Nonetheless, surgical placement with the help of lifts seems safe, effective, and feasible, and is a viable option in cases with challenging anatomies due to previous surgeries or anomalies.

Performance with a new bone conduction implant audio processor in patients with single-sided deafness

PURPOSE

The SAMBA 2 BB audio processor for the BONEBRIDGE bone conduction implant features a new automatic listening environment detection to focus on target speech and to reduce interfering speech and background noises. The aim of this study was to evaluate the audiological benefit of the SAMBA 2 BB (AP2) and to compare it with its predecessor SAMBA BB (AP1).

METHODS

Prospective within-subject comparison study. We compared the aided sound field hearing thresholds, speech understanding in quiet (Freiburg monosyllables), and speech understanding in noise (Oldenburg sentence test) with the AP1 and AP2. Each audio processor was worn for 2 weeks before assessment and seven users with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD) participated in the study. For speech understanding in noise, two complex noise scenarios with multiple noise sources including single talker interfering speech were used. The first scenario included speech presented from the front (S0NMIX), while in the second scenario speech was presented from the side of the implanted ear (SIPSINMIX). In addition, subjective evaluation using the SSQ12, APSQ, and the BBSS questionnaires was performed.

RESULTS

We found improved speech understanding in quiet with the AP2 compared to the AP1 aided condition (on average + 17%, p = 0.007). In both noise scenarios, the AP2 lead to improved speech reception thresholds by 1.2 dB (S0NMIX, p = 0.032) and 2.1 dB (SIPSINMIX, p = 0.048) compared to the AP1. The questionnaires revealed no statistically significant differences, except an improved APSQ usability score with the AP2.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians can expect that patients with SSD will benefit from the SAMBA 2 BB by improved speech understanding in both quiet and in complex noise scenarios, when compared to the older SAMBA BB.

Evaluation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 active bone conductive implant in adults: efficacy and stability of audiological, surgical, and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

(1) To assess the effectiveness and safety of a bone-conduction implant, the Bonebridge BCI 602, in adults with conductive or mixed hearing loss. (2) To investigate whether the Bonebridge BCI 602 is at least as effective as the Bonebridge BCI 601 in such patients.

METHODS

The study group included 42 adults who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients underwent Bonebridge BCI 602 implant surgery. Before and after implantation, pure-tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Polish Monosyllabic Word Test. Speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. Subjective assessment of benefits was done using the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire.

RESULTS

The APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after BCI 602 implantation. Both word recognition in quiet and speech reception threshold in noise were significantly better after BCI 602 implantation and remained stable for at least 12 months. A significant advantage of the device is a reduced time for surgery while maintaining safety. In this study, the mean time for BCI 602 implantation was 28.3 min ± 9.4.

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation Bonebridge BCI 602 implant is an effective hearing rehabilitation device for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Patient satisfaction and audiological results confirm its efficacy and safety. Its new shape and dimensions allow it to be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient or difficult anatomical conditions. The new BCI 602 implant is as effective as its predecessor, the BCI 601.

Self-Rated Benefits of Auditory Performance after Bonebridge Implantation in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss, or Single-Sided Deafness

The Bonebridge implant can be a satisfactory solution for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL or MHL), or with single-sided deafness (SSD). The aim of the study was to assess patients’ self-reported benefits with the Bonebridge and characterize the relationships between pre-implantation audiometric data, auditory functioning, and satisfaction after implantation. A focus was to see whether different types of hearing loss were associated with particular benefits. The study sample consisted of 81 patients. Procedures comprised pure tone audiometry before implantation, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and a structured interview asking about satisfaction. Statistically significant improvements after implantation were found in all groups (CHL, MHL, SSD) on the APHAB questionnaire. In the structured interview, patients with SSD were the least satisfied. No significant correlation was found between pre-operative air-bone gap and bone conduction thresholds or with APHAB score. Bonebridge implantation is beneficial to patients with CHL or MHL, or with SSD. Assessment of patients for Bonebridge implantation is complex, and audiometric data should be complemented by patient-reported outcomes to provide deeper insight into their individual needs and attitudes.

The Bonebridge BCI 602 Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant in Children: Objective and Subjective Benefits

Background: the Bonebridge hearing implant is an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant suitable for various types of hearing loss. It was first launched in 2012 as the BCI 601, with a newer internal part (BCI 602) released in 2019. With the new size and shape, the BCI 602 can be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient anatomical conditions, especially in patients with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear. Objectives: the purpose of this study is to evaluate the objective and subjective benefits of the new Bonebridge BCI 602 in children who have hearing impairment due to conductive or mixed hearing loss. Safety and effectiveness of the device was assessed. Methods: the study group included 22 children aged 8–18 years (mean age 14.7 years) who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients were implanted unilaterally with the new Bonebridge BCI 602 implant. Pure tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed before and after implantation. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Demenko and Pruszewicz Polish Monosyllabic Word Test, and speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. The subjective assessment of benefits was carried outusing the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Results: after implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 all patients showed a statistically significant improvement in hearing and speech understanding. The mean word recognition score (WRS) changed from 12.1% before implantation to 87.3% after 6 months. Mean speech reception threshold (SRT) before implantation was +4.79 dB SNR and improved to −1.29 dB SNR after 6 months. All patients showed stable postoperative results. The APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after implantation, with a statistically significant improvement in global score. Pre-operative scores (M = 35.7) were significantly worse than post-operative scores at 6 months (M = 25.7). Conclusions: the present study confirms that the Bonebridge BCI 602 is an innovative and effective solution, especially for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss due to anatomical ear defects. The Bonebridge BCI 602 system provides valuable and stable audiological and surgical benefits. Subjective assessment also confirms the effectiveness of the BCI 602. The BCI 602 offers the same amplification as the BCI601, but with a smaller size. The smaller dimensions make it an effective treatment option for a wider group of patients, especially children with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear.