Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024; 28(02): e332-e338
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777416
Original Research

Active Bone Conduction Implant and Adhesive Bone Conduction Device: A Comparison of Audiological Performance and Subjective Satisfaction

Maria Fernanda Di Gregorio
1   Department of Otoneurology, Sanatorio Allende, Nueva Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
,
Carolina Der
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital Dr. Luis Calvo Mackenna, Providencia, Santiago, Chile
,
Sofia Bravo-Torres
3   Department of Audiology, Hospital Dr. Luis Calvo Mackenna, Providencia, Santiago, Chile
,
Mario Emilio Zernotti 
4   Department of ENT, Sanatorio Allende, Nueva Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
5   Speech Therapy School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
› Author Affiliations Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Atresia of the external auditory canal affects 1 in every 10 thousand to 20 thousand live births, with a much higher prevalence in Latin America, at 5 to 21 out of every 10 thousand newborns. The treatment involves esthetic and functional aspects. Regarding the functional treatment, there are surgical and nonsurgical alternatives like spectacle frames and rigid and softband systems. Active transcutaneous bone conduction implants (BCIs) achieve good sound transmission and directly stimulate the bone.

Objective To assess the audiological performance and subjective satisfaction of children implanted with an active transcutaneous BCI for more than one year and to compare the outcomes with a nonsurgical adhesive bone conduction device (aBCD) in the same users.

Methods The present is a prospective, multicentric study. The audiological performance was evaluated at 1, 6, and 12 months postactivation, and after a 1-month trial with the nonsurgical device.

Results Ten patients completed all tests. The 4-frequency pure-tone average (4PTA) in the unaided condition was of 65 dB HL, which improved significantly to 20 dB HL after using the BCI for 12 months. The speech recognition in quiet in the unaided condition was of 33% on average, which improved significantly, to 99% with the BCI, and to 91% with the aBCD.

Conclusion The aBCD demonstrated sufficient hearing improvement and subjective satisfaction; thus, it is a good solution for hearing rehabilitation if surgery is not desired or not possible. If surgery is an option, the BCI is the superior device in terms of hearing outcomes, particularly background noise and subjective satisfaction.

Keywords

aural atresia - bone conduction hearing aids - conductive hearing loss


Publication History

Received: 28 December 2022

Accepted: 03 November 2023

Article published online:
11 March 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 El-Begermy MA, Mansour OI, El-Makhzangy AM, El-Gindy TS. Congenital auditory meatal atresia: a numerical review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 266 (04) 501-506 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0783-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pereira Jr LV. F. B. Up to Date on Etiology and Epidemiology of Hearing Loss. In: Jr., F. B., editor. Update On Hearing Loss [Internet]. London: IntechOpen; 2015. . Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/49487 DOI: 10.5772/61845
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lo JF, Tsang WS, Yu JY, Ho OY, Ku PK, Tong MC. Contemporary hearing rehabilitation options in patients with aural atresia. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 761579 DOI: 10.1155/2014/761579.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Luquetti DV, Heike CL, Hing AV, Cunningham ML, Cox TC. Microtia: epidemiology and genetics. Am J Med Genet A 2012; 158A (01) 124-139 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34352.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zernotti ME, Chiaraviglio MM, Mauricio SB, Tabernero PA, Zernotti M, Di Gregorio MF. Audiological outcomes in patients with congenital aural atresia implanted with transcutaneous active bone conduction hearing implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 119: 54-58 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.01.016.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Siegert R, Mattheis S, Kasic J. Fully implantable hearing aids in patients with congenital auricular atresia. Laryngoscope 2007; 117 (02) 336-340 DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31802b6561.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Long X, Yu N, Huang J, Wang X. Complication rate of autologous cartilage microtia reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013; 1 (07) e57 DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0b013e3182aa8784.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Westerkull P. An adhesive bone conduction system, ADHEAR, a new treatment option for conductive hearing losses. J Hear Sci 2018; 8 (02) 35-43 10.17430/1003045
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Favoreel A, Heuninck E, Mansbach AL. Audiological benefit and subjective satisfaction of children with the ADHEAR audio processor and adhesive adapter. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 129: 109729 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109729.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M. Bone conduction hearing sensitivity in normal-hearing subjects: transcutaneous stimulation at BAHA vs BCI position. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (06) 360-369 DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2014.880813.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dahm V, Auinger AB, Liepins R, Baumgartner WD, Riss D, Arnoldner C. A Randomized Cross-over Trial Comparing a Pressure-free, Adhesive to a Conventional Bone Conduction Hearing Device. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40 (05) 571-577 DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002184.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gawliczek T, Munzinger F, Anschuetz L, Caversaccio M, Kompis M, Wimmer W. Unilateral and Bilateral Audiological Benefit With an Adhesively Attached, Noninvasive Bone Conduction Hearing System. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (08) 1025-1030 DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001924.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Neumann K, Thomas JP, Voelter C, Dazert S. A new adhesive bone conduction hearing system effectively treats conductive hearing loss in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 122: 117-125 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.03.014.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Colletti V, Soli SD, Carner M, Colletti L. Treatment of mixed hearing losses via implantation of a vibratory transducer on the round window. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (10) 600-608 DOI: 10.1080/14992020600840903.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sprinzl G, Lenarz T, Ernst A. et al. First European multicenter results with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant system: short-term safety and efficacy. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (06) 1076-1083 DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31828bb541.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M. New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl) 2015; 8: 79-93 DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S39691.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sprinzl GM, Wolf-Magele A. The Bonebridge Bone Conduction Hearing Implant: indication criteria, surgery and a systematic review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol 2016; 41 (02) 131-143 DOI: 10.1111/coa.12484.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nazer J, Lay-Son G, Cifuentes L. [Prevalence of microtia and anotia at the maternity of the University of Chile Clinical Hospital]. Rev Med Chil 2006; 134 (10) 1295-1301
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zernotti ME, Curet CA, Cortasa S, Chiaraviglio M, Di Gregorio MF. Congenital Aural Atresia prevalence in the Argentinian population. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed). 2019 Jan-Feb;70(1):32–35. English, Spanish. doi: 10.1016/j.otorri.2017.10.006. Epub 2018 Mar 20. PMID: 29571523
  • 20 Fuente A, McPherson B. Auditory processing tests for Spanish-speaking adults: an initial study. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (11) 645-659 DOI: 10.1080/14992020600937238.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gadea M, Gomez C, Espert R. Test-retest performance for the consonant-vowel dichotic listening test with and without attentional manipulations. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2000; 22 (06) 793-803 DOI: 10.1076/jcen.22.6.793.959.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bravo-Torres S, Fuentes-López E, Guerrero-Escudero B, Morales-Campos R. Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) rating scale. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (08) 590-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ching TY, Hill M. The Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (03) 220-235 DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18.3.4.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Billinger-Finke M, Bräcker T, Weber A, Amann E, Anderson I, Batsoulis C. Development and validation of the audio processor satisfaction questionnaire (APSQ) for hearing implant users. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (05) 392-397 DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Liu Y, Zhao C, Yang J. et al. Audiological and subjective benefit with a new adhesive bone conduction hearing aid in children with congenital unilateral microtia and atresia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; 279 (09) 4289-4301 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-07168-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Skarżyński PH, Ratuszniak A, Król B. et al. The Bonebridge in Adults with Mixed and Conductive Hearing Loss: Audiological and Quality of Life Outcomes. Audiol Neurotol 2019; 24 (02) 90-99 DOI: 10.1159/000499363.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zernotti ME, Alvarado E, Zernotti M, Claveria N, Di Gregorio MF. One-Year Follow-Up in Children with Conductive Hearing Loss Using ADHEAR. Audiol Neurotol 2021; 26 (06) 435-444 DOI: 10.1159/000514087.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Skarzynski PH, Krol B, Skarzynski H, Cywka KB. Implantation of two generations of Bonebridge after mastoid obliteration with bioactive glass S53P4. Am J Otolaryngol 2022; 43 (05) 103601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS, Böheim K. et al. A New Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implant: Short-term Safety and Efficacy in Children. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (06) 713-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sprinzl GM, Schoerg P, Ploder M, Edlinger SH, Magele A. Surgical Experience and Early Audiological Outcomes With New Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42 (08) 1208-1215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cywka KB, Skarzynski PH, Krol B, Hatzopoulos S, Skarzynski H. Evaluation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 active bone conductive implant in adults: efficacy and stability of audiological, surgical, and functional outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; 279 (07) 3525-3534 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07265-2.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Håkansson B, Tjellström A, Rosenhall U. Hearing thresholds with direct bone conduction versus conventional bone conduction. Scand Audiol 1984; 13 (01) 3-13 DOI: 10.3109/01050398409076252.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gavilan J, Cavallé Garrido L, Pérez Mora RM, De Paula Vernetta C, Lassaletta L. Comparison of the non-invasive adhesive bone conduction hearing system with passive transcutaneous bone conduction implants in children with Atresia and Microtia ESPCI 2019, Bucharest, Romania.
  • 34 Lieu JE. Management of Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2015; 48 (06) 1011-1026 DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2015.07.006.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rohlfs AK, Friedhoff J, Bohnert A. et al. Unilateral hearing loss in children: a retrospective study and a review of the current literature. Eur J Pediatr 2017; 176 (04) 475-486 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-016-2827-2.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kraai T, Brown C, Neeff M, Fisher K. Complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in pediatric patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75 (06) 749-753 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.01.018.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mohamad S, Khan I, Hey SY, Hussain SS. A systematic review on skin complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in relation to surgical techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (03) 559-565 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3436-1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tang IP, Ling XN, Prepageran N. A review of surgical and audiological outcomes of bonebridge at tertiary centres in Malaysia. Med J Malaysia 2018; 73 (05) 276-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar