The Bonebridge Bone Conduction Hearing Implant: indication criteria, surgery and a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Hearing aids and implants employing bone conduction (BC) stimulation have a long tradition in the treatment of conductive or mixed hearing loss, with their indications being extended in the 2000s to include single-sided deafness (SSD). Existing percutaneous bone conduction implants (BCI) provide significant audiological gain but are associated with a high rate of complications. This has led to the development of passive transcutaneous BCIs; however, audiological benefit may be compromised. An active transcutaneous BCI, the Bonebridge, was recently introduced and first implanted in 2011 as part of a clinical trial. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To introduce and assess the safety and effectiveness of the Bonebridge for individuals with conductive or mixed hearing loss, and SSD. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library, PubMed and OVIDSP (MEDLINE) and EMBASE were searched to identify papers on the Bonebridge published as of June 2014. No exclusion criteria were set on publication language, study design or reported outcomes. The literature found was supplemented by presentations from relevant conferences. EVALUATION METHOD: Study selection, data extraction and study quality assessment were carried out by a single reviewer with any uncertainties resolved with consulting a second reviewer. Studies were synthesised narratively and results were tabulated. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies, 17 published and 12 presentations, were identified. The highest quality evidence was from three single-arm trials. In those assessing the safety of implantation, 6 of 117 patients experienced a minor adverse event with superficial revision surgery being required in one case. Studies demonstrated improved hearing thresholds and speech recognition with the Bonebridge when compared to no aiding in adults and children with either type of hearing loss. This was reflected in high device satisfaction rates. Data collected in the second year of device use further suggest the benefit to remain constant. CONCLUSION: The transcutaneous BCI system Bonebridge provides a valuable and stable audiological benefit to patients suffering from conductive or mixed hearing loss and SSD. With its active transcutaneous design, the Bonebridge offers a lower complication rate to percutaneous systems and higher and more reliable hearing gain compared to other transcutaneous or percutaneous systems. Moreover, the fast activation of the implant system enables the recipient of the system to benefit in a short time frame postoperatively from the intervention.

[Listening effort with cochlear implants: Unilateral versus bilateral use]. / Höranstrengung bei Cochlea-Implantaten: Einseitige versus beidseitige Versorgung.

AIM: The influence of bilateral cochlear implants (CI) and unilateral CI on the self-reported listening effort in standardized situations is being assessed. SAMPLE AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 34 bilateral and 38 unilateral adult CI users. Unilateral CI users had at least severe hearing loss in the non-implanted ear and had been fitted with a hearing aid. The listening effort has been defined as a subjectively perceived effort in understanding a speaker. Patients were administered a customized questionnaire containing nine examples of listening situations with different demands. The listening effort expended in each situation had to be rated on a six-step scale. Answers were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA, including the factors "level of background noise," "listening duration," and the covariates "patient age" and "time since CI implantation." RESULTS: Only the factors "level of background noise" and "listening duration" were significant (p = 0.024 and p = 0.001 respectively). Unilateral versus bilateral CI was not significant (p = 0.17). Nevertheless, bilateral CI users reported a lower degree of listening effort than unilateral users in all of the nine situations asked about in the questionnaire (binomial test: p = 0.002). DISCUSSION: We conclude that bilateral CI use has some effect on reducing listening effort, but compared with unilateral use the effect is possibly not very great.

Postoperative changes in telemetry measurements after cochlear implantation and its impact on early activation.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation is a clinically routine treatment for patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss for over 20 years. Up to now, the general recommendation for speech processor activation was 4 weeks after cochlear implantation. The aim of this study was to determine whether activation is possible at <4 weeks postop and to show the postoperative change in telemetry over time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was retrospectively carried out at the Karl Landsteiner University Hospital St. Pölten, Austria. Patients who routinely received a CI between January and August 2013 were included in this study. Two weeks after the surgery clinical complications, the ability to wear the audio processor and the impedance values were analysed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included in this study. Forty patients were examined at the first postoperative visit, scheduled 2 weeks after the surgery. In nine cases, a mild wound-healing complication occurred; just in one patient, the activation could not carry out immediately. There were no statistically significant differences between the intraoperative, the 2- and 6-week postop impedance measurements for each channel. DISCUSSION: We used the minimally invasive approach and soft implantation technique in all of our patients and believe this to have been a major reason that earlier activation was possible. With this technique, you can reduce the wound-healing process, which makes it possible for the wound to heal fully and for the patient to wear the sound processor over the wound without problems. We found out that telemetry is not a predictor for the time of activation. CONCLUSION: Based on the results in this study, an earlier activation can be recommended. This will shorten the time the patient needs to wait following cochlear implantation, and rehabilitation can begin sooner.

[The active middle ear implant for the rehabilitation of sensorineural, mixed and conductive hearing losses]. / Das aktive Mittelohrimplantat in der Rehabilitation von sensorineuralen, kombinierten und Schallleitungs-Hörstörungen.

Active middle ear implants, such as the Vibrant Soundbridge, are used as an important part in the rehabilitation of sensorineural, conductive hearing, or mixed hearing loss. The attachment of the Vibrant Soundbridge at the round window and the usage of the Vibroplasty couplers strongly expanded the application of the Vibrant Soundbridge.The Vibrant Soundbridge is developed for patients who have an intolerance to hearing aids and a moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The VSB also provides an optimal solution for patients with failed middle ear reconstructions or patients with atresia. To capture the improvement with the VSB Implant with different hearing losses a literature analysis was conducted. The functional gain was analyzed for 107 patients with conductive hearing loss and for 214 patients with sensorineural hearing loss out of 14 studies.Patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss resulted in a functional gain from 30 to 58 dB with the VSB. Patients with a pure sensorineural hearing loss showed a functional gain of 23-30 dB. The VSB bone conduction threshold shift was analyzed for all studies conducted in the years between 2000 and 2009. In 11 of the 16 studies there was no significant (p=0.05) change found. In 5 studies, the pre- to post-surgical bone conduction threshold shift was less than 10 dB. None of these studies measured a threshold shift of more than 10 dB.The flexible attachment at either the long process of the incus with sensorineural hearing loss, with an conductive hearing loss at the round window or the use of Vibroplasty couplers at the oval window, head of the stapes or round window makes the VSB an extremely versatile instrument. If patients can't wear conventional hearing aids, had failed middle ear reconstructions or atresia the VSB presents, due to the significant hearing improvement in any type of hearing loss, an ideal solution.