Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 273, Issue 12, pp 4193–4198 | Cite as

Comparing audiological test results obtained from a sound processor attached to a Softband with direct and magnetic passive bone conduction hearing implant systems

  • Ahmet KaraEmail author
  • Mete Iseri
  • Merve Durgut
  • Murat Topdag
  • Murat Ozturk
Otology

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare audiological test results obtained from a sound processor (SP) attached to a Softband with those obtained from direct (abutment connection) bone conduction implant systems and magnetic passive bone conduction implant systems with different magnet strengths on patients implanted at our clinic. Twenty-four patients who were implanted with either an abutment or magnetic bone conduction implant system between January 2012 and December 2014 were analyzed for hearing results, such as free-field hearing thresholds, direct bone conduction hearing thresholds, and speech discrimination scores with aided and unaided conditions Both magnetic and direct osseointegrated bone conduction implant systems, as well as the Softband system, provide good hearing outcomes when compared with unaided performance; however, the abutment connection system gives better hearing thresholds in the higher frequencies. No significant difference in hearing gain was found between the Softband system, magnet 5, and magnet used by the patient. Magnetic and direct bone conduction hearing implant systems are both effective for rehabilitation of conductive and mixed hearing loss when conventional hearing aids cannot be used. However, patients with high-frequency hearing loss may be better suited to an abutment connection system if they are not satisfied with high-frequency hearing gains provided via the trial Softband system preoperatively and should be counseled accordingly.

Keywords

Hearing loss Bone conductive implant Hearing aids and assistive Listening devices Auditory rehabilitation Headband test 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The research protocol was approved by the Kocaeli University Ethics Committee and performed in accordance with the ethical regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki and Turkish law and regulations. (KOÜ HAYDEK 2014/331).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M (2015) New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl) 16(8):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kiringoda R, Lustig LR (2013) A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 34:790–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fan Y, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang P, Zhu XL, Yang H, Chen XW, Gao ZQ (2013) Prevention and treatment of skin complications following BAHA implantation. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 48:798–801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hough J, Vernon J, Johnson B, Dormer K, Himelick T (1986) Experiences with implantable hearing devices and a presentation of a new device. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:60–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wade PS, Tollos SK, Naiberg J (1989) Clinical experience with the Xomed Audiant osteointegrated bone conducting hearing device: a preliminary report of seven cases. J Otolaryngol 18:79–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Işeri M, Orhan KS, Kara A, Durgut M, Oztürk M, Topdağ M, Calışkan S (2014) A new transcutaneous bone anchored hearing device–the Baha® Attract System: the first experience in Turkey. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 24:59–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mulla O, Agada F, Reilly PG (2012) Introducing the Sophono Alpha 1 abutment free bone conduction hearing system. Clin Otolaryngol 37:168–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zernotti ME, Sarasty AB (2015) Active bone conduction prosthesis: bonebridgeTM. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 19(4):343–348CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zarowski AJ, Verstraeten N, Somers T, Riff D, Offeciers EF (2011) Headbands, testbands and softbands in preoperative testing and application of bone-anchored devices in adults and children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 71:124–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kurz A, Flynn M, Caversaccio M, Kompis M (2014) Speech understanding with a new implant technology: a comparative study with a new nonskin penetrating Baha system. BioMed Res Int 201:416205Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Håkansson B, Tjellström A, Rosenhall U (1984) Hearing thresholds with direct bone conduction versus conventional bone conduction. Scand Audiol 13(1):3–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van der Pouw CT, Snik AF, Cremers CW (1999) The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 24:171–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heywood RL, Patel PM, Jonathan DA (2011) Comparison of hearing thresholds obtained with Baha preoperative assessment tools and those obtained with the osseointegrated implant. Ear Nose Throat J 90:E21–E27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monini S, Filippi C, Atturo F, Biagini M, Lazzarino AI, Barbara M (2015) Individualised headband simulation test for predicting outcome after percutaneous bone conductive implantation. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 35:258–264PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmet Kara
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mete Iseri
    • 2
  • Merve Durgut
    • 2
  • Murat Topdag
    • 2
  • Murat Ozturk
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologySakarya University Training and Research HospitalSakaryaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyKocaeli University Faculty of MedicineKocaeliTurkey

Personalised recommendations