Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dun CA, Faber HT, de Wolf MJ, Cremers CW, Hol MK (2011) An overview of different systems: the bone-anchored hearing aid. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 71:22–31. https://doi.org/10.1159/000323577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saroul N, Akkari M, Pavier Y, Gilain L, Mom T (2013) Long-term benefit and sound localization in patients with single-sided deafness rehabilitated with an osseointegrated bone-conduction device. Otol Neurotol 34(1):111–114. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31827a2020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tjellstrom A, Granstrom G (1994) Long-term follow-up with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a review of the first 100 patients between 1977 and 1985. Ear Nose Throat J 73(2):112–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. McLeod RWJ, Culling JF, Jiang D (2018) Advances in the field of bone conduction hearing implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 81:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1159/000485587

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Iseri M, Orhan KS, Tuncer U, Kara A, Durgut M, Guldiken Y, Surmelioglu O (2015) Transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids versus percutaneous ones: multicenter comparative clinical study. Otol Neurotol 36(5):849–853. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000000733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hol MK, Nelissen RC, Agterberg MJ, Cremers CW, Snik AF (2013) Comparison between a new implantable transcutaneous bone conductor and percutaneous bone-conduction hearing implant. Otol Neurotol 34(6):1071–1075. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182868608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hobson JC, Roper AJ, Andrew R, Rothera MP, Hill P, Green KM (2010) Complications of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. J laryngol Otol 124(2):132–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022215109991708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. House JW, Kutz JW Jr (2007) Bone-anchored hearing aids: incidence and management of postoperative complications. Otol Neurotol 28(2):213–217. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31802c74c4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Godbehere J, Carr SD, Moraleda J, Edwards P, Ray J (2017) A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices. J laryngol Otol 131(8):667–670. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002221511700127x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cedars E, Chan D, Lao A, Hardies L, Meyer A, Rosbe K (2016) Conversion of traditional osseointegrated bone-anchored hearing aids to the Baha((R)) attract in four pediatric patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 91:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.09.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huber AM, Sim JH, Xie YZ, Chatzimichalis M, Ullrich O, Roosli C (2013) The Bonebridge: preclinical evaluation of a new transcutaneously-activated bone anchored hearing device. Hear Res 301:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.02.003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerdes T, Salcher RB, Schwab B, Lenarz T, Maier H (2016) Comparison of audiological results between a transcutaneous and a percutaneous bone conduction instrument in conductive hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 37(6):685–691. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sprinzl GM, Wolf-Magele A (2016) The Bonebridge bone conduction hearing implant: indication criteria, surgery and a systematic review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol 41(2):131–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. de Wolf MJ, Shival ML, Hol MK, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW, Snik AF (2010) Benefit and quality of life in older bone-anchored hearing aid users. Otol Neurotol 31(5):766–772. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181e3d740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nelissen RC, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW, Hol MK, Snik AF (2015) Long-term compliance and satisfaction with percutaneous bone conduction devices in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 36(5):826–833. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000000765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wendrich AW, Kroese TE, Peters JPM, Cattani G, Grolman W (2017) Systematic review on the trial period for bone conduction devices in single-sided deafness: rates and reasons for rejection. Otol Neurotol 38(5):632–641. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brooks D (1985) Factors relating to the under-use of postaural hearing aids. Br J Audiol 19(3):211–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rigato C, Reinfeldt S, Hakansson B, Jansson KJ, Hol MK, Eeg-Olofsson M (2016) Audiometric comparison between the first patients with the transcutaneous bone conduction implant and matched percutaneous bone anchored hearing device users. Otol Neurotol 37(9):1381–1387. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Carlsson PU, Hakansson BE (1997) The bone-anchored hearing aid: reference quantities and functional gain. Ear Hear 18(1):34–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Busch S, Lenarz T, Maier H (2016) Comparison of alternative coupling methods of the vibrant soundbridge floating mass transducer. Audiol Neuro-Otol 21(6):347–355. https://doi.org/10.1159/000453354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cooper T, McDonald B, Ho A (2017) Passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol 38(9):1225–1232. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Barneveld D, Kok HJW, Noten JFP, Bosman AJ, Snik AFM (2018) Determining fitting ranges of various bone conduction hearing aids. Clin Otolaryngol 43(1):68–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sprinzl G, Lenarz T, Ernst A, Hagen R, Wolf-Magele A, Mojallal H, Todt I, Mlynski R, Wolframm MD (2013) First European multicenter results with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant system: short-term safety and efficacy. Otol Neurotol 34(6):1076–1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31828bb541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Busch S, Giere T, Lenarz T, Maier H (2015) Comparison of audiologic results and patient satisfaction for two osseointegrated bone conduction devices: results of a prospective study. Otol Neurotol 36(5):842–848. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000000727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ihler F, Volbers L, Blum J, Matthias C, Canis M (2014) Preliminary functional results and quality of life after implantation of a new bone conduction hearing device in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 35(2):211–215. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000000208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Snik A (2018) How to quantify the ‘auditory gain’ of a bone-conduction device; comment to the systematic review by Bezdjian et al. (2017). Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 109:187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.02.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kiringoda R, Lustig LR (2013) A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 34(5):790–794. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318291c651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolfe J (2018) Cochlear implants: audiologic management and considerations for implantable hearing devices. Plural Publishing, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  29. Krempaska S, Koval J, Schmid C, Pfiffner F, Kurz A, Kompis M (2014) Influence of directionality and maximal power output on speech understanding with bone anchored hearing implants in single sided deafness. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(6):1395–1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2565-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bosman AJ, Kruyt IJ, Mylanus EAM, Hol MKS, Snik AFM (2018) On the evaluation of a superpower sound processor for bone-anchored hearing. Clin Otolaryngol 43(2):450–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim G, Ju HM, Lee SH, Kim HS, Kwon JA, Seo YJ (2017) Efficacy of bone-anchored hearing aids in single-sided deafness: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol 38(4):473–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Andersen HT, Schroder SA, Bonding P (2006) Unilateral deafness after acoustic neuroma surgery: subjective hearing handicap and the effect of the bone-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 27(6):809–814. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000227900.57785.ec

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Snapp HA, Holt FD, Liu X, Rajguru SM (2017) Comparison of speech-in-noise and localization benefits in unilateral hearing loss subjects using contralateral routing of signal hearing aids or bone-anchored implants. Otol Neurotol 38(1):11–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001269

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Finbow J, Bance M, Aiken S, Gulliver M, Verge J, Caissie R (2015) A Comparison between wireless CROS and bone-anchored hearing devices for single-sided deafness: a pilot study. Otol Neurotol 36(5):819–825. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000000762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hol MK, Kunst SJ, Snik AF, Bosman AJ, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW (2010) Bone-anchored hearing aids in patients with acquired and congenital unilateral inner ear deafness (Baha CROS): clinical evaluation of 56 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119(7):447–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348941011900704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Agterberg MJH, Snik AFM, Van de Goor RMG, Hol MKS, Van Opstal AJ (2019) Sound-localization performance of patients with single-sided deafness is not improved when listening with a bone-conduction device. Hear Res 372:62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2018.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pennings RJ, Gulliver M, Morris DP (2011) The importance of an extended preoperative trial of BAHA in unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: a prospective cohort study. Clin Otolaryngol 36(5):442–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2011.02388.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Schroder SA, Ravn T, Bonding P (2010) BAHA in single-sided deafness: patient compliance and subjective benefit. Otol Neurotol 31(3):404–408. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d27cc0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gulick WL, Gescheider GA, Frisina RD (1989) Hearing: Physiological acoustics, neural coding, and psychoacoustics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cox RM, Stephens D, Kramer SE (2002) Translations of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA). Int J Audiol 41(1):3–26. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992020209101307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cox RM, Alexander GC (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16(2):176–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199504000-00005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the clinical research grant provided from Seoul National University Bundang Hostpital (21-2019-131, 13-2019-002, 21-2018-237, 13-2018-015) and the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea

    Jae Joon Han

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-Ro, Bundang-Gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea

    Hye-Rim Park, Jae-Jin Song, Ja-Won Koo & Byung Yoon Choi

Authors
  1. Jae Joon Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hye-Rim Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jae-Jin Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ja-Won Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Byung Yoon Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Jae Joon Han and Hye-Rim Park. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jae Joon Han and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byung Yoon Choi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board of our institute for research involving human subjects (No. B-1904/532-106) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, J.J., Park, HR., Song, JJ. et al. A comparison study of audiological outcome and compliance of bone conduction implantable hearing implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 3003–3012 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06025-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06025-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation