Abstract
Aim
This European multicentric study aimed to prove safety and performance of the Bonebridge BCI 602 in children and adults suffering from either conductive hearing loss (CHL), mixed hearing loss (MHL), or single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD).
Methods
33 patients (13 adults and 10 children with either CHL or MHL and 10 patients with SSD) in three study groups were included. Patients were their own controls (single-subject repeated measures), comparing the unaided or pre-operative to the 3-month post-operative outcomes. Performance was evaluated by sound field thresholds (SF), word recognition scores (WRS) and/or speech reception thresholds in quiet (SRT) and in noise (SNR). Safety was demonstrated with a device-specific surgical questionnaire, adverse event reporting and stable pure-tone measurements.
Results
The Bonebridge BCI 602 significantly improved SF thresholds (+ 25.5 dB CHL/MHL/SSD), speech intelligibility in WRS (+ 68.0% CHL/MHL) and SRT in quiet (− 16.5 dB C/MHL) and in noise (− 3.51 dB SNR SSD). Air conduction (AC) and bone conduction (BC) thresholds remained stable over time. All adverse events were resolved, with none unanticipated. Mean audio processor wearing times in hours [h] per day for the CHL/MHL group were ~ 13 h for adults, ~ 11 h for paediatrics and ~ 6 h for the SSD group. The average surgical length was 57 min for the CHL/MHL group and 42 min for the SSD group. The versatility of the BCI 602 (reduced drilling depth and ability to bend the transition for optimal placement) allows for treatment of normal, pre-operated and malformed anatomies. All audiological endpoints were reached.
Conclusions
The Bonebridge BCI 602 significantly improved hearing thresholds and speech understanding. Since implant placement follows the patient’s anatomy instead of the shape of the device and the duration of surgery is shorter than with its predecessor, implantation is easier with the BCI 602. Performance and safety were proven for adults and children as well as for the CHL/MHL and SSD indications 3 months post-operatively.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The Bonebridge (BB) system, the first active (direct-drive) transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant (BCI), augments hearing by providing acoustic input to the inner ear via bone conduction and has been implanted around the world for more than 10 years.
Bone Conduction Implants offer a valuable treatment option for people who cannot wear conventional acoustic hearing aids for medical reasons, or who are unsuccessful acoustic hearing aid users [1, 2]. In addition to hearing glasses and bone conduction headbands, there are also implantable bone conduction systems. BCIs are subdivided into passive percutaneous (Baha Connect, Ponto), passive transcutaneous (Baha Attract, Sophono,) or active transcutaneous (Bonebridge, OSIA) bone conduction devices [3].
The advantage of the Bonebridge compared to passive bone conduction systems is that it bypasses attenuation through the skin [4]. Compared to percutaneous bone conduction systems, the transcutaneous implants leave the skin intact and thus reduce the risk of implant loss, infection and the need for constant wound care [5].
The Bonebridge is intended to treat patients 5 years and older suffering from either conductive (CHL) or mixed hearing loss (MHL) or single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD). The latest generation of the Bonebridge, the BCI 602, comes with self-drilling screws and an optimized design. These new features mean that the implant is suitable for implantation in a wider range of anatomical conditions due to a reduced drill depth [6, 7]. Fewer surgical steps also simplify and shorten the surgical procedure. The dimensions of the BCI 602 (MRI-conditional at 1.5 T) and its predecessor, the BCI 601, were described in a monocentric study by Cywka et al. [8] (see also Fig. 1a + b).
Schematics for placement evaluation: a BCI 602 dimensions and horizontal bending angles; b BCI 602 dimensions and vertical bending angles. Index fingers and thumbs should be placed at the FMT and the positioning aid, respectively; c BC-FMT (Bone Conduction—Floating Mass Transducer) placement areas (1, 2, 3, 4) temporal bone; d coil section placement areas (A, B, C)
Previous prospective multicentric studies on the predecessor BCI 601 have shown significant improvements in terms of aided sound field (SF) thresholds, word recognition scores (WRS), speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise (SRT) and patient device satisfaction [9,10,11,12]. Safety of the device was established with stable residual hearing and low complication rates. Here, we present surgical information and early safety, and performance results up to 3-month post-implantation from a long-term European multicentric study. These results confirm the short term safety and performance of the Bonebridge BCI 602 for its indications.
Methods
Ethical considerations
The study was conducted in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 and was approved by the relevant ethics committees (Stuttgart (GER) ref.# 67634_2019BO1; Wels (A) 1168_2019; Wien (A) ref.# 1877_2019; St. Pölten (A) ref.# GS1-EK-3_159-2019: Halle (Saale) (GER) ref.# 2019–126; Innsbruck (A) ref.# 1187/2019; Belfast (UK/NIR) ref.# ORECNI 20-NI-0020; Hannover (GER) ref.# 8640_BO_S_2019). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT04427033.
Study design
The study was observatory, non-interventional, systematic, longitudinal, ambidirectional (retrospective and prospective), multicentric and multilingual, open-label, single-patient, using repeated measures. This study was designed to closely follow and observe the actual routine clinical practice of all included sites. The study comprised three groups, CHL/MHL Adult (18 years and older), CHL/MHL Paediatric (5–17 years) and SSD (5 years and older). The interim analysis per group was planned when 3-month data for the sample size of at least 6 patients were available.
Patients
Subjects 5 years of age and older in the indication range of the BCI 602 for CHL/MHL and SSD were included. Subjects with unstable hearing loss (fluctuation of > 15 dB HL over a 2-year period), with physical, psychological and emotional diseases or disorders or simultaneous participation in another clinical trial that would interfere with the ability to perform on test procedures were not eligible for enrolment.
Endpoints and statistical analysis
The clinical trials for the BCI 601 in adults [9] and children [10] showed significant improvements of PTA4 (PTA4 = 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz) sound field thresholds. For the primary endpoint a mean improvement of ≥ 10 dB in PTA4 sound field thresholds was considered significant. Therefore, for this study we calculated a sample size of 5 subjects with a power of 95% and an alpha-level of 0.05 for a two-sided paired sample t test. To allow for possible dropouts (approximately 20%), the minimum sample size was set to 6 subjects per group.
For the secondary endpoints mean differences of > 10 dB in BC PTA4 and mean improvements of ≥ 15% in WRS, ≥ 15 dB SPL in SRT and ≥ 1.0 dB SNR in SRT in noise were considered significant [9, 10, 13,14,15,16]. For speech reception in noise two decimal places are reported as the improvement endpoint is 1.0 dB SNR, for all others one decimal place is clinically relevant.
Descriptive statistics were used to report patient demographics (e.g., age and gender) and baseline characteristics (e.g., aetiologies, medical history). Mean, standard deviation (SD), and/or median with range (minimum and maximum values) were used to describe quantitative data; absolute and relative frequencies were used to present qualitative data. To choose whether a parametric (two-sided t test; t) or a non-parametric test (2 sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test; z) should be applied, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and a graphical examination were conducted to check for distribution. The t or z value indicates the test used. Statistical significance was set to p ≤ 0.05. The corresponding confidence level is 95%. The analysis was carried out on the ITT population.
IBM SPSS Statistics 24 (IBM, Armonk, New York) was used for the analyses. Graphs were created in GraphPad Prism 6–7 (GraphPad Software, Inc.).
Audiometric testing
Audiometric tests were scheduled before surgery and 3 months after surgery. Pure tone audiometry was performed for both ears using insert earphones, headphones, or a calibrated BC vibrator, as appropriate, on each ear individually. Thresholds were routinely measured at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 kHz for BC and additionally at 6.0 and 8.0 kHz for AC. The contra-lateral ear was plugged and covered, and masking noise was applied as needed. In SSD patients the BC thresholds of the normal-hearing ear (NH) were analysed.
For tests in the sound field, the speaker was at least 1 m from and at level with the centre of the patient’s head. Sound field (SF) thresholds and speech tests in quiet were conducted with signals presented at 0° azimuth (S0). The contra-lateral ear was plugged and covered, and/or masking noise was applied as needed in CHL/MHL patients. Aided testing was conducted with the patient wearing the audio processor (AP).
For CHL/MHL subjects, WRS were routinely measured with age-appropriate monosyllabic (MS) word lists (e.g., Freiburger, Göttinger or Mainzer) at 65 dB SPL and the percent correct score was recorded. As all lists are used to test the percent correct at the same fixed level, improvements can be pooled.
The speech reception threshold (SRT) in quiet and in noise was tested using the international matrix test (IMT) distributed by HörTech GmbH (Oldenburg), which has excellent comparability across languages [17]. The SRT is defined as the level of 50% intelligibility of spondees or comparable speech material in dB SPL. The speech presentation level was started at 65 dB SPL and varied until a patient understood approximately 50% of the presented speech. In SRT in noise, the noise level was fixed at 65 dB SPL. The difference between the level in dB at 50% speech reception and 65 dB noise level was presented as the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). The IMT in noise was conducted for CHL/MHL with speech (S) and noise (N) at 0° azimuth (S0°N0°) and for SSD patients with speech from the SSD ear and noise from the normal hearing ear NH (SSSD NNH) as well as with speech from the front and noise from the NH (S0°NNH).
Results
Demographics
A total of 33 patients with an average age of 31 years (range 5–69) were analysed. All 23 patients suffering from CHL/MHL had a PTA4 air bone gap greater than or equal to 15 dB.
The adult CHL/MHL group encompassed eight female, five male, eight right-side and five left-side implanted patients (see Table 1), with an average age of 43 years. Seven adult patients had BC thresholds worse or equal to 20 dB HL in one or more frequency, e.g., a mixed hearing loss. Most of the patients’ hearing loss was attributed to cholesteatoma (6x), followed by congenital reasons (5x, e.g., malformation, dysplasia etc.), mastoidectomy (1x) and radical cavity (1x) (see Table 1). Two patients had been treated with a BCI 601 on the study ear 7 years earlier. Both devices had been placed in a radical cavity that was found to be infected during explantation. Examination of the explanted BCI 601 devices did not reveal any device defects or problems that could have existed, while they were implanted. In both cases the BCI 602 was then implanted above the temporal line with no connection to or away from the radical cavity.
10 paediatric CHL/MHL patients were analysed [six female and four male; seven right-side and three left-side implants; average age of 8 years (range 5–12)] (see Table 1). The underlying aetiology for all paediatrics’ hearing loss were malformations, further specified as atresia in three cases. Two paediatrics suffered from MHL.
10 patients suffered from SSD, with severe to profound hearing loss on one side and normal hearing (NH) (see Table 1) on the other. Of the 10 SSD subjects, six were female and four male, with an average age of 38 years (range 9–69), two of which were under 18. Two were implanted on the right and eight on the left side. The underlying aetiology was either congenital, tumorous, infectious, or traumatic.
Safety
Surgery
The average duration of surgery for the CHL/MHL group was 57 ± 19 min for adults and 57 ± 20 min for the paediatric group. The SSD group duration of surgery was shorter at 42 ± 3 min; the average for all patients was 52 ± 18 min (range 26–101 min).
The BC-FMT was placed in different regions of the temporal bone but mostly in the mastoid in area 3 (sinodural angle) and 4 (retrosigmoidal), as well as above the temporal line in areas 1 (above area 3) and 2 (above area 4) or combinations thereof (see Fig. 1 and Table 2). The incision usually ran from areas 3 to 1. On average, the incision spanned 5.5 ± 2.9 cm for the adult, 4.3 ± 1.3 cm for the paediatric and 4.8 ± 0.8 cm for the SSD groups. The average skin flap thickness was 4.5 mm for the adult, 4.6 mm for the paediatric and 4.7 mm for the SSD groups. Average cortical bone thickness was reported to be 4 mm for the adult, 2.7 mm for the paediatric and 4.3 mm for the SSD populations. The BCI 602 transition was bent horizontally upwards in 23 cases at an average angle of + 38° and downwards in 8 cases at an average angle of − 36°. Vertically, the BCI 602 transition was bent − 11° on average in 12 cases. The coil section was mostly placed in area B. This is the desired area as this locates the AP above the pinna and the microphones can pick up sound in an unblocked manner.
No complications with the Surgical Screwdriver SD 2 were reported. No BCI 602 Lifts (1 mm) were used in any of the CHL/MHL patients, and the standard self-drilling screws were applied. In only one SSD patient (number 27 in Table 2), two Lifts were used and in two patients an emergency screw was used to “achieve better torque” and “better fixation”, respectively.
The dura was exposed 9 times (Adult N = 4; Paediatric N = 3; SSD N = 2). One of these patients reported as swelling around the coil section (see Adverse Events—ID 11). In 2 patients the dura was compressed, and the sinus exposed (Adults N = 1 and SSD N = 1). One of these suffered a bacterial infection of the skin flap (see AEs—ID 9). In one case the dura and the sinus were compressed (Paediatric N = 1). In one SSD patient the sinus was only exposed and in one paediatric case the sinus was compressed (see Table 2). The two ADEs reported were not related to the dura exposure or compression.
Adverse events
No intraoperative events were reported. For all enrolled ears 3 events related to the procedure or the device (Adverse Device Effects—ADE) were reported 3 months after surgery. All ADEs were anticipated and were classified as transient postoperative side effects. Two ADE were reported for the adult CHL/MHL and one ADE for the SSD population. One adult (ID 9) experienced a bacterial infection of the skin flap in the first month after surgery. This event was solved by antibiotic treatment and not wearing the AP for 14 days. This patient was pre-operated several times (see Table 1). Two months after surgery, one other adult patient (ID 11) reported swelling around the coil of the implant and pain when not wearing the AP that increased with extra pressure on the area. This event was solved with antibiotic treatment and not wearing the AP, as the patient had been wearing it for 15 h a day with a too strong magnet. After a period of discontinued AP usage, the magnet was switched to a weaker strength. One 9-year-old SSD patient experienced pain after surgery; changing the magnet strength from strength #2 to #1 solved the problem.
Pure tone thresholds
Residual hearing by mean AC and BC thresholds (treated ear CHL/MHL and NH ear in SSD) was preserved 3 months after surgery. Results of pairwise comparisons confirmed that AC (Adult: N = 13, pre 56.3 ± 13.6 dB HL, 3 M 54.6 ± 13.5 dB HL; t = 1.377, p = 0.412; Paediatric: pre 56.0 ± 14.4 dB HL, 3 M 56.5 ± 11.3 dB HL; z = – 0.771, p = 0.44; SSD: pre 9.5 ± 6.7 dB HL, 3 M 9.9 ± 7.6 dB HL; t = – 0.316, p = 0.759) and BC (Adult: N = 12, pre 11.9 ± 6 dB HL, 3 M 11.5 ± 5.6 dB HL; t = 0.343, p = 0.356; Paediatric: pre 7.3 ± 5.7 dB HL, 3 M 7.1 ± 4.9 dB HL; t = 0.105, p = 0.788; SSD: pre 6.9 ± 6.1 dB HL, 3 M 9.9 ± 7.6 dB HL; t = − 0.779, p = 0.456) PTA4 thresholds remained stable over time from preoperative to 3-month post-operative. No clinically significant decrease (> 10 dB HL) at 3-month post-operative in mean AC and BC PTA4 and mean single frequency thresholds (see Fig. 2) was observed.
a AC and BC thresholds: CHL/MHL adults and paediatrics; b AC thresholds: SSD NH; c BC thresholds: SSD NH; square = mean AC; circle = mean BC; white = pre-operative; grey = 3-month post-operative; outer lines = standard deviations
Performance
Wearing time
Mean AP wearing times in hours per day for the adult CHL/MHL group were 13 h [h] 12 min [min] ± 4 h 54 min, 10 h 42 min ± 3 h for the paediatric CHL/MHL group and 6 h 20 min ± 3 h 13 min for the SSD group.
Sound field thresholds
The endpoint was reached with a mean improvement of ≥ 10 dB HL. Mean SF PTA4 thresholds improved significantly for all subjects (All: N = 31, z = – 4.862, p < 0.001*; Adult: N = 13, t = 10.172, p < 0.001*; Paediatric: N = 10, t = 18.983, p < 0.001*; SSD: N = 8, z = – 2.536, p < 0.011*) from unaided 55.4 ± 7.7 (Adult: 53.7 ± 9.0 dB HL; Paediatric: 58.4 ± 6.9 dB HL; SSD: 54.5 ± 6.1 dB HL) to aided 29.9 ± 4.9 dB HL (Adult: 27.7 ± 2.6 dB HL; Paediatric: 31.1 ± 5.1 dB HL; SSD: 31.9 ± 6.8 dB HL), with a PTA4 functional gain (FG) of 25.5 dB (Adult: 26.0 dB; Paediatric: 27.3 dB; SSD: 22.7 dB) (see Fig. 3 and Table 3).
a SF thresholds: all subjects; inverted triangle and white = mean unaided; triangle and grey = mean aided; outer lines = standard deviations. b SF PTA 4 thresholds: Box Plots, median = horizontal lines, + = mean, circles = individual values; * = significance
Speech intelligibility WRS (CHL/MHL)
The endpoint was reached with a mean improvement of ≥ 15% SPL. Mean WRS improved significantly for all CHL/MHL subjects (All: N = 23, z = – 4.202; p < 0.001*; Adult: N = 13, z = – 3.183, p < 0.001*; Paediatric: N = 10, z = – 2.807, p < 0.001*) from unaided 8.48 ± 15.8% (Adult: 9.2 ± 19.7%; Paediatric: 7.5 ± 9.8%) to aided 76.5% (Adult: 83.9 ± 13.4%; Paediatric: 67.0 ± 25.41%) by 68.0% (Adult: 74.6%; Paediatric: 59.5%). The endpoint was reached with a mean improvement of > 15% (see Fig. 4).
WRS CHL/MHL: Box Plots, median = horizontal lines, + = mean, circle = individual values; * = significance
Speech intelligibility SRT in quiet (CHL/MHL)
The endpoint was reached with a mean improvement of ≥ 15 dB SPL. Mean SRT in quiet improved significantly for all CHL/MHL subjects (All: N = 23, z = – 4.136; p < 0.001*; Adult: N = 13, z = – 3.04, p < 0.002*; Paediatric: N = 10, t = – 6.567, p < 0.001*) from unaided 62.0 ± 12.9 dB SPL (Adult: 59.0 ± 12.8 dB SPL; Paediatric: 65.0 ± 13.3 dB SPL) to aided 45.6 ± 10.3 dB SPL (Adult: 42.6 ± 9.1 dB SPL; Paediatric: 49.4 ± 11 dB SPL) by 16.5 dB (Adult: 17.2 dB; Paediatric: 15.6 dB) The endpoint was reached with a mean improvement of > 15 dB SPL (see Fig. 5).
SRT in quiet CHL/MHL: Box Plots, median = horizontal lines, + = mean, circle = individual values; * = significance
Speech intelligibility SRT in noise
Mean SRT in noise improved significantly for all CHL/MHL subjects in S0°N0° (All: N = 23, z = – 4.198; p < 0.001*; Adult: N = 13, z = – 3.181, p < 0.001*; Paediatric: N = 10, z = – 2.803, p < 0.001*), from unaided 3.55 ± 7.5 (Adult: 2.4 ± 4.6 dB SNR; Paediatric: 5.05 ± 10.2 dB SNR) to aided − 3.47 ± 3.4 dB SNR (Adult: − 4.4 ± 1.8 dB SNR; Paediatric: − 2.28 ± 4.6 dB SNR) by − 7.02 dB (Adult: − 6.8 dB; Paediatric: − 7.33 dB). The endpoint was reached with a mean improvement of > − 1 dB (see Fig. 5a).
In the SSD population, with speech applied from the SSD ear and noise from the normal-hearing ear (SSSDNNH, N = 10), the mean SRT in noise improved significantly (t = 5.365, p < 0.001*), by − 3.51 dB SNR from + 2.47 to − 1.04 dB SNR. With speech applied from the front and noise from the normal-hearing ear (S0°NNH, N = 10), a tendency for a statistically significant improvement (t = 2.250, p = 0.051) of –0.8 dB from + 0.15 to − 0.65 dB SNR was reported. The endpoint was reached with a mean improvement of ≥ − 1 dB SSSDNNH, but not in S0°NNH (see Fig. 5b).
Discussion
Safety
Surgery
The average surgery for the BCI 602 lasted 52 ± 18 min (range 26–101 min) for all patients. A shorter duration of surgery further underlines the safety and ease of implantation of the BCI 602. Average surgical durations of 55 ± 23 min and 53.7 min (range 30–158 min) are reported for the BCI 601 [12] and for the OSIA2 [18,19,20], respectively.
An advantage of the BCI 602 as compared to other transcutaneous BCIs is the possibility to bend the transition to achieve an optimal placement of the AP. This feature was widely used with the BCI 602 (horizontal N = 31; vertical N = 12). The BCI 602 was mostly placed in the mastoid (Area 3, sinodural angle; Area 3 + 4, retrosigmoidal) or above the temporal line (Area 1 or Area 1 + 2); only one patient was implanted in Area 2 (see Table 2). Implantation in Area 1 and 2 is described for the BCI 601 [21,22,23] in patients with previous surgeries or other anatomical restrictions. Regardless of the placement of the implant, the audiological endpoints were reached.
Der et al. and Carnevale et al. report on successful placement of the BCI 601 above the temporal line with similar audiological outcomes to the outcomes reported in this study [23]. The latter report a duration of surgery of 47 min using a standard otological drill and 28 min with the Neuro Drill for this approach.
Interestingly, no BCI 602 Lifts were used in the paediatric as well as in the adult groups, even though the average cortical bone thickness was thinner at 3.6 mm and 3.7 mm, respectively, compared to the 4.3 mm of the SSD population in which two Lifts were used in one patient. This SSD patient showed a significant improvement of − 2.4 dB SNR in setup one (SSSDNNH). This improvement is in the range (− 1.31 to − 5.5 dB) reported for the BCI 601. For comparison, the implantation depth of the BC-FMT is 4.5 mm without Lifts and 3.5 mm with Lifts, and the total bone thickness is larger than the cortical bone thickness [24].
Yang et al. focused on compressions and use of Lifts in Bonebridge implantation [24]. They analysed the mean anteroposterior mastoid bone thickness in 110 bilateral congenital microtia BCI 601 patients with a mean age of 11.7 ± 5.2 years. The anteroposterior mastoid bone thickness was measured from the external auditory canal to the sigmoid sinus. They found statistically different (p < 0.001) anteroposterior mastoid bone thickness in the non-compression group of 16.2 ± 2.3 mm (N = 67) and in the compression group of 13.1 ± 2.9 mm (N = 43; dura: 18 patients, sinus: 14 patients, both: 11 patients), without any differences in performance. 42 patients were implanted with Lifts (5 × 1 mm, 26 × 2 mm and 11 × 3 mm Lift). In 26 patients the Lifts prevented compression, while in 16 patients, the Lifts could not prevent compression. As mentioned before, compression of either the dura or sigmoid sinus or use of Lifts had no effect on hearing outcomes. With respect to audiological outcomes, no differences using Lifts, or no Lifts were also reported by Brkic et al. [25].
Furthermore, no significant differences were found in a study measuring sound transmitted to the cochlea in cadaveric temporal bones in respect to screw type, Lift thickness, or implant location [26].
Exposure and compression did not lead to any complications in this study. The different implant placements used underline the fact that implantation in the temporal bone allows for treatment of normal, pre-operated and malformed anatomies.
Loader et al. [27] compared the audiological and surgical outcomes in mastoidal and retrosigmoidal placement of the BCI 601 and found no statistically significant differences. Kulasegarah et al. showed that children with atresia and microtia and even ear reconstructions have good outcomes with the BCI 601 but stated that in some children with small mastoids a BCI 601 implantation is not possible [28].
Auricular reconstruction and simultaneous BCI 601 implantation in uni- and bilateral microtia patients has been well-described by Chan et al. [29] and Wang et al. [30], underlining the fact that Bonebridge treatment does not prevent aesthetic treatment. Similarly, the simultaneous implantation of the Bonebridge hearing implant system together with anchors for individual auricular prosthesis is an adequate option for simultaneous cosmetic and audiological rehabilitation [31].
Wenzel et al. showed by three-dimensional reconstruction of temporal bones from computed tomography and virtually implanting the BCI 602 and BCI 601 in 151 mastoids, that the newer BCI 602 transducer can more likely than its predecessor be completely accommodated in the mastoid without using Lifts (100% in people aged 12 years and older and 75% of 3–5 years) [6]. Using the Lifts, the BCI 602 could be virtually implanted in 81% or more of cases aged three and above. This study showed that the reduced drilling depth required for the BCI 602 may also allow for placement in patients with thin mastoid bones or malformations. Since Wenzel et al. focused on the mastoid area and not on the whole temporal bone, placement options for the BCI 602 should be even more variable.
Adverse events
Safety of the device was confirmed by a lack of significant change in bone and air conduction thresholds in the normal hearing ear (see Fig. 2). Safety of the BCI 602 treatment was further established, as only transient postoperative side effects occurred, all of which could be solved by antibiotics, not wearing the AP, for a short time, changing the magnet strength or combinations thereof. Regarding dura or sinus compression (see Table 2), no intraoperative side effects were reported.
Performance
Wearing time
The BCI 602 device was used for ~ 11 h a day in the paediatric CHL/MHL population, which is in line with wearing times for the BCI 601 (~ 12 h, [12]), but less than reported for the adult population (~ 13 h). The wearing time of ~ 6 h is shorter for the SSD population. This may be attributed to the normal-hearing ear in SSD patients. Wearing times of ~ 8 h for the BCI 601 in SSD patients are reported 2 years after surgery [11].
Sound field thresholds
Hearing with the BCI 602 in SF PTA4 showed significant improvements from 55.40 dB HL unaided to 29.86 dB HL with the Bonebridge. The primary endpoint of 10 dB improvement was reached, with mean functional gains (FG) of 25.53 dB for all subjects and 26 dB for the adult, 27.27 dB for the paediatric and 22.66 dB for the SSD populations (see Fig. 3). These findings are in agreement with published literature on the BCI 601, with fifteen studies reporting FGs ranging from 23 to 40 dB [4, 9, 10, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44], thirteen studies reporting FGs for paediatric patients ranging from 23.1 to 39.8 dB [10, 22, 24, 28, 44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52] and eleven studies in 103 SSD subjects reporting FGs with a range from 17 to 71.5 dB [38, 39, 41, 53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60].
Speech intelligibility
The primary endpoint of 15% mean improvement in WRS was reached with 68.04% (see Fig. 4) for all CHL/MHL patients and corresponds to the improvements of 40–95% reported for the BCI 601 [9, 10, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41, 43, 44, 61]. This improvement is underlined by significant improvements of 16.47 dB in SRT in quiet (see Fig. 5) and − 7.02 dB in SRT in noise (Fig. 6a) for the CHL/MHL population.
SRT in noise a CHL/MHL in S0°N0°; b SSD in SSSDNNH and in S0°NNH; Box Plots: median = horizontal lines, + = mean, circle = individual values; * = significance
In addition to the improvement of hearing thresholds, the main advantage of a Bonebridge for an SSD patient is for speech understanding in noise. The biggest effect is expected when noise is presented at the normal hearing side and the signal is coming from the implanted side (SSSDNNH) or the front (S0°NNH). In SSSDNNH the improvement of − 3.51 dB was significant (see Fig. 6b).
This is in line with five other publications on the BCI 601 in this setup (SSSDNNH) that reported an average improvement of − 3.3 dB (range − 1.31 to − 5.5 dB) [35, 38, 40, 61, 62]. In S0°NNH, the improvement of − 0.8 dB has a tendency to significance (see Fig. 6b). This outcome is comparable to the average improvements reported for the BCI 601 in a similar setup (SSSDN0°), with a range of + 0.3 to − 2.5 dB [11, 40, 53, 61,62,63,64].
Conclusions
The latest generation implant of the Bonebridge system, the BCI 602—the first active transcutaneous hearing implant—significantly improves hearing thresholds and speech understanding in patients suffering from CHL/MHL and in patients treated for SSD on short-term follow-up. The new geometry of the BCI 602 allows for more placement options that may be advantageous for use in patients with thin bones, malformations, or pre-operated ears. Only three minor device-related events were reported, demonstrating an unaltered safety profile.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Kochkin (2000) MarkeTrak V: “Why my hearing aids are in the drawer”: the consumers’ perspective. Hear J 53:3469–41
Kochkin (2000) MarkeTrak V: consumer satisfaction revisited. Heari J 53:384025–65025
Rahne T, Plontke SK (2022) Systematic and audiological indication criteria for bone conduction devices and active middle ear implants. Hear Res 421:108424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108424
Zernotti ME, Di Gregorio MF, Galeazzi P et al (2016) Comparative outcomes of active and passive hearing devices by transcutaneous bone conduction. Acta Otolaryngol 136:556–558. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2016.1143119
Kiringoda R, Lustig LR (2013) A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 34:790–794. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318291c651
Wenzel C, Schilde S, Plontke SK et al (2020) Changes in bone conduction implant geometry improve the bone fit in mastoids of children and young adults. Otol Neurotol 41:1406–1412. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002798
Plontke SK, Gotze G, Wenzel C et al (2020) Implantation of a new active bone conduction hearing device with optimized geometry. HNO 68:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-020-00877-2
Cywka KB, Skarzynski PH, Krol B et al (2022) Evaluation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 active bone conductive implant in adults: efficacy and stability of audiological, surgical, and functional outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07265-2
Sprinzl G, Lenarz T, Ernst A et al (2013) First European multicenter results with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant system: short-term safety and efficacy. Otol Neurotol 34:1076–1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31828bb541
Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS, Boheim K et al (2016) A new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: short-term safety and efficacy in children. Otol Neurotol 37:713–720. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001038
Huber AM, Strauchmann B, Caversaccio MD et al (2022) Multicenter results with an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant in patients with single-sided deafness. Otol Neurotol 43:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003418
Sprinzl G, Lenarz T, Hagen R et al (2021) Long-term, multicenter results with the first transcutaneous bone conduction implant. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003159
Zokoll MA, Hochmuth S, Warzybok A et al (2013) Speech-in-noise tests for multilingual hearing screening and diagnostics1. Am J Audiol 22:175–178. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2013/12-0061)
Stuart A, Stenstrom R, Tompkins C et al (1991) Test-retest variability in audiometric threshold with supraaural and insert earphones among children and adults. Audiology 30:82–90
Landry JA, Green WB (1999) Pure-tone audiometric threshold test-retest variability in young and elderly adults. J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol 23:6
ANSI (2004) Methods for Manual Pure-Tone Threshold Audiometry AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI S3.21–2004
Kollmeier B, Warzybok A, Hochmuth S et al (2015) The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: a review. Int J Audiol 54(Suppl 2):3–16. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971
Goldstein MR, Bourn S, Jacob A (2021) Early Osia(R) 2 bone conduction hearing implant experience: Nationwide controlled-market release data and single-center outcomes. Am J Otolaryngol 42:102818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102818
Cushing SL, Gordon KA, Purcell PL et al (2022) surgical considerations for an osseointegrated steady state implant (OSIA2(R)) in children. Laryngoscope 132:1088–1092. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29892
Arndt S, Rauch AK, Speck I (2021) Active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant: how I do it. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278:4119–4122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06946-8
Siegert R (2011) Partially implantable bone conduction hearing aids without a percutaneous abutment (Otomag): technique and preliminary clinical results. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 71:41–46. https://doi.org/10.1159/000323720
Der C, Bravo-Torres S, Pons N (2018) Active transcutaneous bone conduction implant: middle fossa placement technique in children with bilateral microtia and external auditory canal atresia. Otol Neurotol 39:e342–e348. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001809
Carnevale C, Tomas-Barberan M, Til-Perez G et al (2019) The Bonebridge active bone conduction system: a fast and safe technique for a middle fossa approach. J Laryngol Otol 133:344–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215119000501
Yang J, Zhao C, Liu Y et al (2020) The effect of anatomical variables and use of the Lifts system on hearing outcomes after implantation of an active transcutaneous bone conduction device in bilateral congenital conductive hearing loss. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 49:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-020-00452-3
Brkic FF, Riss D, Arnoldner C et al (2021) Safety and efficacy of implantation of the Bonebridge active transcutaneous bone-conduction device using implant lifts. J Am Acad Audiol 32:290–294. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1723038
Rohani SA, Bartling ML, Ladak HM et al (2020) The BONEBRIDGE active transcutaneous bone conduction implant: effects of location, lifts and screws on sound transmission. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 49:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-020-00454-1
Loader B, Sterrer E, Reichmayr C et al (2018) Direct comparison of mastoidal and retrosigmoidal placement of a transcutaneous bone conduction device after canal wall down tympanoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 43:1603–1606. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13187
Kulasegarah J, Burgess H, Neeff M et al (2018) Comparing audiological outcomes between the Bonebridge and bone conduction hearing aid on a hard test band: Our experience in children with atresia and microtia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 107:176–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.01.032
Chan KC, Wallace CG, Wai-Yee Ho V et al (2019) Simultaneous auricular reconstruction and transcutaneous bone conduction device implantation in patients with microtia. J Formos Med Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2019.01.013
Wang Y, Xing W, Liu T et al (2018) Simultaneous auricular reconstruction combined with bone bridge implantation-optimal surgical techniques in bilateral microtia with severe hearing impairment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 113:82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.07.004
Seiwerth I, Plossl S, Herzog M et al (2022) Individual computer-assisted 3D planning for placement of auricular prosthesis anchors in combination with an implantable transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device in patients with aural atresia. HNO. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-022-01190-w
Ihler F, Volbers L, Blum J et al (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 35:211–215. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000208
Eberhard KE, Olsen SO, Miyazaki H et al (2016) Objective and Subjective Outcome of a New Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Device: Half-year Follow-up of the First 12 Nordic Implantations. Otol Neurotol 37:267–275. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000969
Gerdes T, Salcher RB, Schwab B et al (2016) Comparison of audiological results between a transcutaneous and a percutaneous bone conduction instrument in conductive hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 37:685–691. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001010
Schmerber S, Deguine O, Marx M et al (2016) Safety and effectiveness of the Bonebridge transcutaneous active direct-drive bone-conduction hearing implant at 1-year device use. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4228-6
Weiss R, Leinung M, Baumann U et al (2016) Improvement of speech perception in quiet and in noise without decreasing localization abilities with the bone conduction device Bonebridge. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4434-2
Ihler F, Blum J, Berger MU et al (2016) The prediction of speech recognition in noise with a semi-implantable bone conduction hearing system by external bone conduction stimulation with headband: a prospective study. Trends Hear. https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216516669330
Lassaletta L, Calvino M, Zernotti M et al (2016) Postoperative pain in patients undergoing a transcutaneous active bone conduction implant (Bonebridge). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:4103–4110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-3972-y
Manrique M, Sanhueza I, Manrique R et al (2014) A new bone conduction implant: surgical technique and results. Otol Neurotol 35:216–220. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000253
Rahne T, Seiwerth I, Gotze G et al (2015) Functional results after Bonebridge implantation in adults and children with conductive and mixed hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:3263–3269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3403-x
Riss D, Arnoldner C, Baumgartner WD et al (2014) Indication criteria and outcomes with the Bonebridge transcutaneous bone-conduction implant. Laryngoscope 124:2802–2806. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24832
Wimmer W, Gerber N, Guignard J et al (2015) Topographic bone thickness maps for Bonebridge implantations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-2976-8
Vyskocil E, Riss D, Arnoldner C et al (2016) Dura and sinus compression with a transcutaneous bone conduction device - hearing outcomes and safety in 38 patients. Clin Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12793
Yang J, Chen P, Zhao C et al (2020) Audiological and subjective outcomes of 100 implanted transcutaneous bone conduction devices and preoperative bone conduction hearing aids in patients with bilateral microtia-atresia. Acta Otolaryngol 140:675–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2020.1762929
Fan X, Ping L, Yang T et al (2020) Comparative effects of unilateral and bilateral bone conduction hearing devices on functional hearing and sound localization abilities in patients with bilateral microtia-atresia. Acta Otolaryngol 140:575–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2020.1745883
Gao M, Zhao C, Yang J et al (2021) Bone-conduction hearing aid is effective in congenital oval window atresia. Acta Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2020.1866211
Pepe G, Negri M, Falcioni M et al (2020) Bonebridge implantation for mixed hearing loss in a patient with Kabuki syndrome. Acta Biomed 91:e2020079. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i3.8257
Ratuszniak A, Skarzynski PH, Gos E et al (2019) The Bonebridge implant in older children and adolescents with mixed or conductive hearing loss: audiological outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 118:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.12.026
Zernotti ME, Chiaraviglio MM, Mauricio SB et al (2019) Audiological outcomes in patients with congenital aural atresia implanted with transcutaneous active bone conduction hearing implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 119:54–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.01.016
Fan X, Yang T, Niu X et al (2019) Long-term outcomes of bone conduction hearing implants in patients with bilateral microtia-atresia. Otol Neurotol 40:998–1005. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002370
Fan X, Wang Y, Wang P et al (2017) Aesthetic and hearing rehabilitation in patients with bilateral microtia-atresia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 101:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.08.008
Ngui LX, Tang IP (2018) Bonebridge transcutaneous bone conduction implant in children with congenital aural atresia: surgical and audiological outcomes. J Laryngol Otol 132:693–697. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215118001123
Sprinzl GM, Schoerg P, Ploder M et al (2021) Surgical experience and early audiological outcomes with new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant. Otol Neurotol 42:1208–1215. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003230
Sikolova S, Urik M, Hosnova D et al (2021) Two Bonebridge bone conduction hearing implant generations: audiological benefit and quality of hearing in children. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-07068-x
Lee HJ, Kahinga AA, Moon IS (2021) Clinical effect of an active transcutaneous bone-conduction implant on tinnitus in patients with ipsilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Auris Nasus Larynx 48:394–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2020.09.009
Han JJ, Park HR, Song JJ et al (2020) A comparison study of audiological outcome and compliance of bone conduction implantable hearing implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277:3003–3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06025-4
Oh SJ, Goh EK, Choi SW et al (2019) Audiologic, surgical and subjective outcomes of active transcutaneous bone conduction implant system (Bonebridge). Int J Audiol 58:956–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2019.1657242
Koro E, Werner M (2019) Outcomes after application of active bone conducting implants. Audiol Neurootol 24:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1159/000502052
Brkic FF, Riss D, Scheuba K et al (2019) Medical, technical and audiological outcomes of hearing rehabilitation with the Bonebridge transcutaneous bone-conduction implant: a single-center experience. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101614
Salcher R, Zimmermann D, Giere T et al (2017) Audiological results in SSD with an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant at a retrosigmoidal position. Otol Neurotol 38:642–647. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001394
Plontke SK, Radetzki F, Seiwerth I et al (2014) Individual computer-assisted 3D planning for surgical placement of a new bone conduction hearing device. Otol Neurotol 35:1251–1257. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000405
Hassepass F, Bulla S, Aschendorff A et al (2014) The bonebridge as a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing system: preliminary surgical and audiological results in children and adolescents. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3137-9
Laske RD, Roosli C, Pfiffner F et al (2015) Functional results and subjective benefit of a transcutaneous bone conduction device in patients with single-sided deafness. Otol Neurotol 36:1151–1156. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000791
Zhao C, Yang J, Liu Y et al (2020) Horizontal sound localisation and speech perception in Bonebridge-implanted single-sided deafness patients. J Laryngol Otol. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215120001899
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following specialists for their work in this study. Without their help this study would not have been possible: Lisa Niederwanger, Sophie Müller, Rudolfs Liepins, Philipp Schörg, Prof. Dr. Torsten Rahne, Claudia Hahn, Viktor Koci, Nicole Knoelke, and Dr. Robert Wiek.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Karl Landsteiner Privatuniversität für Gesundheitswissenschaften.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
This study was sponsored by MED-EL Medical Electronics, Innsbruck, Austria. The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sprinzl, G., Toner, J., Koitschev, A. et al. Multicentric study on surgical information and early safety and performance results with the Bonebridge BCI 602: an active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280, 1565–1579 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07792-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07792-y