A new bone conduction hearing aid to predict hearing outcome with an active implanted device

PurposeWe compared our historical medium-term data obtained with an active semi-implanted bone conduction device and the hearing results of a new passive bone conduction hearing device to determine its predictive value for the hearing results with the semi-implanted device.MethodsThe study sample was 15 patients with an active bone conduction implant (mean follow-up 26 months). Pure tone audiometry was performed with headphones, sound field speech audiometry was conducted unaided, and free-field speech audiometry was carried out with both the active bone conduction system and the passive device switched off.ResultsAs compared with the unaided condition, speech reception was significantly improved with both devices. Comparison of speech reception threshold at 100% of word recognition showed no difference between the active and the passive device. At lower intensity the difference in speech perception was significant in the patients with monaural fitting (group A) and was non-statistically significant in those with binaural fitting (group B); the speech reception threshold at 50% of word recognition was 26.00 dB (± 10.22) with the active implant and 30.50 dB (± 7.98) with the passive device in group A (p = 0.047) and 24.00 dB (± 5.48) and 29.00 dB (± 2.24) in group B (p = 0.052), respectively.ConclusionsThe hearing outcome after active bone conduction implant was comparable to published data. Compared with the unaided condition, speech recognition was significantly improved with the passive device. The device may also provide value to predict the hearing outcome with the implanted device, especially at higher intensities.Level of evidenceIV.

[1]  C. Welz,et al.  The Prediction of Speech Recognition in Noise With a Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Hearing System by External Bone Conduction Stimulation With Headband , 2016, Trends in hearing.

[2]  M. Hol,et al.  Assessment of More Than 1,000 Implanted Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices: Skin Reactions and Implant Survival , 2012, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[3]  H S Colburn,et al.  Theory of binaural interaction based in auditory-nerve data. IV. A model for subjective lateral position. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  C. Arnoldner,et al.  First results with a new, pressure-free, adhesive bone conduction hearing aid , 2018, Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie.

[5]  M. Zernotti,et al.  Quality standards for bone conduction implants , 2015, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[6]  Patrik Westerkull AN ADHESIVE BONE CONDUCTION SYSTEM,ADHEAR, A NEW TREATMENT OPTION FORCONDUCTIVE HEARING LOSSES , 2020 .

[7]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Comparison of Audiological Results Between a Transcutaneous and a Percutaneous Bone Conduction Instrument in Conductive Hearing Loss , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[8]  O. Déguine,et al.  Safety and effectiveness of the Bonebridge transcutaneous active direct-drive bone-conduction hearing implant at 1-year device use , 2017, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[9]  T. Lenarz,et al.  First European Multicenter Results With a New Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implant System: Short-Term Safety and Efficacy , 2013, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[10]  K. Green,et al.  Complications of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. , 2010, The Journal of laryngology and otology.