Top

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Published in:

Open Access 06-05-2022 | Bone Conduction Implant | Otology

The bone conduction implant BONEBRIDGE increases quality of life and social life satisfaction

Authors: C. Irmer, S. Volkenstein, S. Dazert, A. Neumann

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 12/2022

Abstract

Purpose

Transcutaneous active bone conduction hearing aids represent an alternative approach to middle ear surgery and conventional hearing aids for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. The aim of this study was to determine quality of life, subjective hearing experience and patients’ satisfaction after implantation of a bone conduction hearing aid.

Methods

This monocentric and retrospective study included twelve adult patients who received a bone conduction hearing aid (Bonebridge, MedEL) consisting of an extracorporeal audio processor and a bone conduction implant (BCI) between 2013 and 2017. On average 40 months after implantation, the patients were asked to answer three questionnaires regarding quality of life (AqoL-8D), self-reported auditory disability (SSQ-12-B) and user’s satisfaction (APSQ) after implantation of the Bonebridge (BB). A descriptive statistical analysis of the questionnaires followed.

Results

12 patients aged 26–85 years (sex: m = 7, w = 5) were recruited. The quality of life of all patients after implantation of the BB (AqoL 8D) averaged an overall utility score of 0.76 (SD ± 0.17). The mean for ‘speech hearing’ in the SSQ-12-B was + 2.43 (SD ± 2.03), + 1.94 (SD ± 1.48) for ‘spatial hearing’ and + 2.28 (SD ± 2.32) for ‘qualities of hearing’. 11 out of 12 patients reported an improvement in their overall hearing. The APSQ score for the subsection ‘wearing comfort’ was 3.50 (SD ± 0.87), ‘social life’ attained a mean of 4.17 (SD ± 1.06). The ‘device inconveniences’ reached 4.02 (SD ± 0.71) and ‘usability’ of the device was measured at 4.23 (SD ± 1.06). The average wearing time of the audio processor in the cohort was 11 h per day, with 8 of 12 patients reporting the maximum length of 12 h per day.

Conclusion

BB implantation results in a gain in the perceived quality of life (AqoL 8D). The SSQ-12-B shows an improvement in subjective hearing. According to the APSQ, it can be assumed that the BB audio processor, although in an extracorporeal position, is rated as a useful instrument with positive impact on social life. The majority stated that they had subjectively benefited from BB implantation and that there were no significant physical or sensory limitations after implantation.

Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE et al (1990) Association between hearing impairment and the quality of life of elderly individuals. J Am Geriatr Soc 38:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1990.tb01595.xCrossRef

World Health Organization. Deafness and hearing loss. In: 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearingloss#:~:text=identification%20and%20management%20of%20common,to%20prevent%20ototoxic%20hearing%20loss. (Date of access: 5th April 2021)

Erler SF, Garstecki DC (2002) Hearing loss- and hearing aid-related stigma: perceptions of women with age-normal hearing. Am J Audiol 11:83–91. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2002/020)CrossRef

Völter C, Götze L, Haubitz I et al (2021) Impact of cochlear implantation on neurocognitive subdomains in adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Neurootol 26:236–245. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510855CrossRef

Dawes P, Emsley R, Cruickshanks KJ et al (2015) Hearing loss and cognition: the role of hearing AIDS, social isolation and depression. PLoS ONE 10:e0119616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119616CrossRef

Lenarz T, Weber BP, Mack KF et al. [The Vibrant Soundbridge System: a new kind of hearing aid for sensorineural hearing loss. 1: Function and initial clinical experiences]. Laryngorhinootologie 1998; 77: 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-996970

Tjellström A, Granström G (1994) Long-term follow-up with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a review of the first 100 patients between 1977 and 1985. Ear Nose Throat J 73:112–114CrossRef

Gopinath B, Schneider J, Hartley D et al (2011) Incidence and predictors of hearing aid use and ownership among older adults with hearing loss. Ann Epidemiol 21:497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.03.005CrossRef

Gallagher NE, Woodside JV (2018) Factors affecting hearing aid adoption and use: a qualitative study. J Am Acad Audiol 29:300–312. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16148CrossRef

10.

Murphy J, Coster G (1997) Issues in patient compliance. Drugs 54:797–800. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199754060-00002CrossRef

11.

Perez E, Edmonds BA (2012) A systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999: a descriptive summary of measurement tools. PLoS ONE 7:e31831. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031831CrossRef

12.

Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL et al (2011) Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res 2:137–144. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.86879CrossRef

13.

Centre for Health Economics MU. AQoL-8D (Data Collection Copy - Simplified) version 12 modified. In: 2017: https://www.aqol.com.au/documents/AQoL-8D/AQoL-8D_simplified_Data_Collection_v12.pdf (Date of access: 5th April 2021)

14.

Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA et al (2014) Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient 7:85–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0036-xCrossRef

15.

Gatehouse S, Noble W (2004) The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43:85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020400050014CrossRef

16.

Noble W, Jensen NS, Naylor G et al (2013) A short form of the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale suitable for clinical use: the SSQ12. Int J Audiol 52:409–412. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2013.781278CrossRef

17.

Billinger-Finke M, Bräcker T, Weber A et al (2020) Development and validation of the audio processor satisfaction questionnaire (APSQ) for hearing implant users. Int J Audiol 59:392–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830CrossRef

18.

Richardson J, Khan M, Iezzi A et al. Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments, MIC Paper 7: Germany. Research Paper 85 Im Internet: https://www.aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper85.pdf. (Date of access: 5th April 2021)

19.

Skarżyński PH, Ratuszniak A, Król B et al (2019) The Bonebridge in adults with mixed and conductive hearing loss: audiological and quality of life outcomes. Audiol Neurootol 24:90–99. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499363CrossRef

20.

Garcier M, Lavedrine A, Gagneux C et al. Bone-anchored and closed skin bonebridge implant in adults: hearing performances and quality of Life. Audiol Neurootol 2021; 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512496

21.

Laske RD, Röösli C, Pfiffner F et al (2015) Functional results and subjective benefit of a transcutaneous bone conduction device in patients with single-sided deafness. Otol Neurotol 36:1151–1156. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000791CrossRef

22.

Weiss R, Leinung M, Baumann U et al (2017) Improvement of speech perception in quiet and in noise without decreasing localization abilities with the bone conduction device Bonebridge. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:2107–2115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4434-2CrossRef

23.

Rahne T, Seiwerth I, Götze G et al (2015) Functional results after Bonebridge implantation in adults and children with conductive and mixed hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:3263–3269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3403-x

24.

McLeod RWJ, Culling JF, Jiang D (2018) Advances in the field of bone conduction hearing implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 81:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1159/000485587CrossRef

25.

Davis A, McMahon CM, Pichora-Fuller KM et al (2016) Aging and hearing health: the life-course approach. Gerontologist 56(Suppl 2):S256-267. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw033CrossRef

26.

Agrawal Y, Platz EA, Niparko JK (2008) Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004. Arch Intern Med 168:1522–1530. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.14.1522CrossRef

27.

Besser J, Stropahl M, Urry E et al (2018) Comorbidities of hearing loss and the implications of multimorbidity for audiological care. Hear Res 369:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2018.06.008CrossRef

28.

Dillon H, Day J, Bant S et al (2020) Adoption, use and non-use of hearing aids: a robust estimate based on Welsh national survey statistics. Int J Audiol 59:567–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2020.1773550

29.

Kochkin S. Obstacles to adult non-user adoption of hearin aids. In: The Hearing Journal; 2007: 24–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000285745.08599.7f

30.

Oh SH, Lee J (2016) General framework of hearing aid fitting management. J Audiol Otol 20:1–7. https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.2016.20.1.1CrossRef

31.

Kluetz PG, Chingos DT, Basch EM et al (2016) Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Measuring Symptomatic Adverse Events With the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 35:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_159514CrossRef

32.

Lee SE, Farzal Z, Ebert CS et al (2020) Readability of patient-reported outcome measures for head and neck oncology. Laryngoscope 130:2839–2842. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28555CrossRef

33.

Armstrong AW, Reich K, Foley P et al (2019) Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes (Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary) with Guselkumab in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: results from the Phase III VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 Studies. Am J Clin Dermatol 20:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-018-0396-z

34.

Tatman LM, Obremskey WT (2019) Patient reported outcomes: the foundation of value. J Orthop Trauma 33(Suppl 7):S53–S55. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001613CrossRef

35.

McDermott AL, Williams J, Kuo M et al (2009) Quality of life in children fitted with a bone-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 30:344–349. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31818b6491CrossRef

36.

Nevoux J, Coudert C, Boulet M et al (2018) Transcutaneous Baha Attract system: long-term outcomes of the French multicenter study. Clin Otolaryngol 43:1553–1559. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13214CrossRef

37.

Rahim SA, Goh BS, Zainor S et al (2018) Outcomes of Bone Anchored Hearing Aid Implant at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC). Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 70:28–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-017-1193-3CrossRef

38.

Badran K, Bunstone D, Arya AK et al (2006) Patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a 14-year experience. Otol Neurotol 27:659–666. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000226300.13457.a6CrossRef

39.

Han JJ, Park HR, Song JJ et al (2020) A comparison study of audiological outcome and compliance of bone conduction implantable hearing implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277:3003–3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06025-4CrossRef

40.

McGee RG (2020) How to include patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials. Curr Osteoporos Rep 18:480–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00611-5CrossRef

41.

Calvert M, Kyte D, Price G et al (2019) Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ 364:k5267. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5267CrossRef

42.

Black N (2013) Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 346:f167. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f167CrossRef

43.

Fan X, Yang T, Niu X et al (2019) Long-term outcomes of bone conduction hearing implants in patients with bilateral microtia-atresia. Otol Neurotol 40:998–1005. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002370CrossRef

44.

Manrique M, Sanhueza I, Manrique R et al (2014) A new bone conduction implant: surgical technique and results. Otol Neurotol 35:216–220. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000253

45.

Tang IP, Ling XN, Prepageran N (2018) A review of surgical and audiological outcomes of bonebridge at tertiary centres in Malaysia. Med J Malaysia 73:276–280

46.

Sprinzl G, Lenarz T, Hagen R et al (2021) Long-term, multicenter results with the first transcutaneous bone conduction implant. Otol Neurotol 42:858–866. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003159

47.

Snik A, Maier H, Hodgetts B et al (2019) Efficacy of auditory implants for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss depends on implant center. Otol Neurotol 40:430–435. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002183CrossRef

Title: The bone conduction implant BONEBRIDGE increases quality of life and social life satisfaction
Authors: C. Irmer
S. Volkenstein
S. Dazert
A. Neumann
Publication date: 06-05-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Bone Conduction Implant
Tympanoplasty
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 12/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07384-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The bone conduction implant BONEBRIDGE increases quality of life and social life satisfaction

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2022

Sound localization in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy

Automatic audiometry using auditory steady-state response and sequential test strategy applied to volunteers with normal hearing

Acinic cell carcinoma of the parotid gland: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes? A multicenter retrospective analysis focusing on survival outcome

Letter to the Editor in response to Posta et al. (2022): Pediatric morphometric study to guide the optimized implantation of the OSIA 2 implant system

Assessment of olfactory fluctuations in a clinical context

Effectiveness and safety of PRP on persistent olfactory dysfunction related to COVID-19