Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T12:17:42.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complications and audiological results of percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2023

Ana Carolina Soares Succar Open the ORCID record for Ana Carolina Soares Succar [Opens in a new window] ,
Tyuana Sandim da Silveira Sassi Open the ORCID record for Tyuana Sandim da Silveira Sassi [Opens in a new window] ,
Rubens Vuono de Brito Neto Open the ORCID record for Rubens Vuono de Brito Neto [Opens in a new window]  and
Luiz Fernando Manzoni Lourençone Open the ORCID record for Luiz Fernando Manzoni Lourençone [Opens in a new window]
Ana Carolina Soares Succar
Affiliation:
Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil
Tyuana Sandim da Silveira Sassi
Affiliation:
Hearing Health Division, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil
Rubens Vuono de Brito Neto
Affiliation:
Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies and Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil
Luiz Fernando Manzoni Lourençone*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Luiz Fernando Manzoni Lourençone; Email: luiz.fernando@usp.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To describe the post-operative complications and audiological results related to percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of 44 patients with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss who were implanted with unilateral Baha Connect or Ponto devices. A generalised linear model for repeated measurements was used.

Results

Twenty patients were Baha Connect users, and 24 were implanted with Ponto devices. Twenty-seven patients experienced complications. No fewer complications were found in the group of patients using longer abutments. When we compared the frequency of complications between Ponto and Baha Connect users, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.90). Free-field hearing thresholds were statistically significantly improved when we compared pre- and post-operative results (p < 0.001). Average speech perception also improved (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Despite percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices having a high rate of complications, they provide significant audiological benefits.

Keywords

Bone anchored devicesaudiologyosseo-integrated implantsskinotology
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 138 , Issue 4 , April 2024 , pp. 391 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Luiz Fernando Manzoni Lourençone takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Clamp, J, Briggs, RJ. The Cochlear Baha 4 Attract System – design concepts, surgical technique and early clinical results. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015;12:223–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellsperman, SE, Nairn, EM, Stucken, EZ. Review of bone conduction hearing devices. Audiol Res 2021;11:207–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagerkvist, H, Carvalho, K, Holmberg, M, Petersson, U, Cremers, C, Hultcrantz, M. Ten years of experience with the Ponto bone anchored hearing system – a systematic literature review. Clin Otolaryngol 2020;45:667–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iseri, M, Orhan, KS, Yarıktaş, MH, Kara, A, Durgut, M, Ceylan, DS et al. Surgical and audiological evaluation of the Baha BA400. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:32–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruyt, IJ, Nelissen, RC, Mylanus, EAM, Hol, MKS. Three-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing a 4.5-mm-wide to a 3.75-mm-wide titanium implant for bone conduction hearing. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:609–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snik, AF, Mylanus, EA, Proops, DW, Wolfaardt, JF, Hodgetts, WE, Somers, T et al. Consensus statements on the BAHA system: where do we stand at present? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2005;195:2–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonding, P. Titanium implants for bone-anchored hearing aids – host reaction. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 2000;543:105–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sardiwalla, Y, Jufas, N, Morris, DP. Direct cost comparison of minimally invasive punch technique versus traditional approaches for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;46:46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hultcrantz, M. Outcome of the bone-anchored hearing aid procedure without skin thinning: a prospective clinical trial. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1134–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holgers, KM, Tjellström, A, Bjursten, LM, Erlandsson, BE. Soft tissue reactions around percutaneous implants: a clinical study of soft tissue conditions around skin-penetrating titanium implants for bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol 1988;9:56–9Google ScholarPubMed
Ghossaini, SN, Roehm, PC. Osseointegrated auditory devices: Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid and PONTO. Otolaryngol Clin 2019;52:243–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiringoda, R, Lustig, LR. A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2013;3:790–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawęcki, W, Stieler, OM, Balcerowiak, A, Komar, D, Gibasiewicz, R, Karlik, M et al. Surgical, functional and audiological evaluation of new Baha® Attract system implantations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:3123–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, MJ, Iório, MCM, Mangabeira-Albernaz, PL. Speech recognition: development of a list of sentences in Portuguese [in Portuguese]. Acta AWHO 1997;16:164–73Google Scholar
Bevilacqua, MC, Banhara, MC, Costa, EA, Vignoly, AB, Alvarenga, KF. The Brazilian Portuguese Hearing in Noise Test. Int J Audiol 2008;47:364–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wazen, JJ, Young, DL, Farrugia, MC, Chandrasekhar, SS, Ghossaini, SN, Borik, J et al. Successes and complications of the Baha system. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1115–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiley. Montgomery: Design and Analysis of Experiments, International Student Version, 7th Edition. In: http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?action=resource&bcsId=4613&itemId=0470398825&resourceId=14570 [20 January 2022]Google Scholar
House, JW, Kutz, JW Jr. Bone-anchored hearing aids: incidence and management of postoperative complications. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:213–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohamad, S, Khan, I, Hey, SY, Hussain, SSM. A systematic review on skin complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in relation to surgical techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:559–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Wolf, MJF, Hol, MKS, Huygen, PLM, Mylanus, EAM, Cremers, WRJ. Nijmegen results with application of a bone-anchored hearing aid in children: simplified surgical technique. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117:805–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, S, Almeyda, J, Sirimanna, KS, Albert, DM, Bailey, CM. Updated surgical experience with bone-anchored hearing aids in children. J Laryngol Otol 2007;21:826–31Google Scholar
Celikgun, B, Kalcioglu, MT. Assessment of discrimination ability in ipsilateral and contralateral ears with a unilateral bone-anchored hearing system. Ear Nose Throat J 2017;96:297–310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boleas-Aguirre, MS, Plano, MDB, Erenchun Lasa, IR, Beroiz, BI. Audiological and subjective benefit results in bone-anchored hearing device users. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:494–503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saliba, I, Woods, O, Caron, C. BAHA results in children at one year follow-up: a prospective longitudinal study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:1058–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed