TY - JOUR
T1 - Initial Experience With Two Active Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants
AU - Schwam, Zachary G.
AU - Perez, Enrique R.
AU - Oh, Samuel
AU - Wong, Kevin
AU - Fan, Caleb
AU - Cosetti, Maura K.
AU - Wanna, George B.
N1 - Funding Information:
G.W. was previously on the surgical advisory board for Oticon and Med-El. He consulted for Med-El, cochlear, and Advanced Bionics. M.C. has received travel grants from Med-El, Cochlear, Stryker, educational research grants from Advanced Bionics, and has done clinical research with Advanced Bionics, Cochlear, and Otonomy. She is on the surgical advisory board for Cochlear. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts of interest
Publisher Copyright:
© Wolters Kluwer Health Inc.
PY - 2022/12/1
Y1 - 2022/12/1
N2 - Objective To analyze our institutional experience with two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary academic otology-neurotology practice. Patients Patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses meeting criteria to receive active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Interventions Implantation with one of two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Outcome Measures Operative time, dural exposure and decompression, use of lifts, implant position, ease of use, qualitative patient satisfaction, complication rates. Results Ten patients received Implant 1 and 11 patients received Implant 2. The most common underlying etiologies of hearing loss were chronic suppurative otitis media in 33.3%, atresia/microtia in 23.8%, and cholesteatoma in 23.8%. Average operative times were 99.3 minutes for Implant 1 and 80.9 minutes for Implant 2 (p = 0.263). Implant 1 required lifts in 60%, dural exposure in 50%, and dural compression in 30%. Overall, placement was difficult in 47.6% of cases. There were no intraoperative complications. There were higher rates of issues with sound quality (27.3% versus 0.0%, p = 0.123) and poor cosmesis (36.4% versus 10.0%, p = 0.360) with Implant 2. Functional gain was not recorded, but all patients derived qualitative benefit from their implant. Three patients had local wound complications that self-resolved or were treated with antibiotics. One patient implanted at an outside institution required explant because of multiple infections. Conclusions There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes comparing Implants 1 and 2; however, Implant 2 had much higher rates of issues with audio quality and poor cosmesis. Placing Implant 1 often required special techniques.
AB - Objective To analyze our institutional experience with two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary academic otology-neurotology practice. Patients Patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses meeting criteria to receive active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Interventions Implantation with one of two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Outcome Measures Operative time, dural exposure and decompression, use of lifts, implant position, ease of use, qualitative patient satisfaction, complication rates. Results Ten patients received Implant 1 and 11 patients received Implant 2. The most common underlying etiologies of hearing loss were chronic suppurative otitis media in 33.3%, atresia/microtia in 23.8%, and cholesteatoma in 23.8%. Average operative times were 99.3 minutes for Implant 1 and 80.9 minutes for Implant 2 (p = 0.263). Implant 1 required lifts in 60%, dural exposure in 50%, and dural compression in 30%. Overall, placement was difficult in 47.6% of cases. There were no intraoperative complications. There were higher rates of issues with sound quality (27.3% versus 0.0%, p = 0.123) and poor cosmesis (36.4% versus 10.0%, p = 0.360) with Implant 2. Functional gain was not recorded, but all patients derived qualitative benefit from their implant. Three patients had local wound complications that self-resolved or were treated with antibiotics. One patient implanted at an outside institution required explant because of multiple infections. Conclusions There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes comparing Implants 1 and 2; however, Implant 2 had much higher rates of issues with audio quality and poor cosmesis. Placing Implant 1 often required special techniques.
KW - BAHA
KW - Bone-anchored hearing implant
KW - Hearing loss
KW - Osseointegration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141891707&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003681
DO - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003681
M3 - Article
C2 - 36075090
AN - SCOPUS:85141891707
SN - 1531-7129
VL - 43
SP - 1212
EP - 1215
JO - Otology and Neurotology
JF - Otology and Neurotology
IS - 10
ER -