Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 12/2016

01-12-2016 | Otology

Comparing audiological test results obtained from a sound processor attached to a Softband with direct and magnetic passive bone conduction hearing implant systems

Authors: Ahmet Kara, Mete Iseri, Merve Durgut, Murat Topdag, Murat Ozturk

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 12/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare audiological test results obtained from a sound processor (SP) attached to a Softband with those obtained from direct (abutment connection) bone conduction implant systems and magnetic passive bone conduction implant systems with different magnet strengths on patients implanted at our clinic. Twenty-four patients who were implanted with either an abutment or magnetic bone conduction implant system between January 2012 and December 2014 were analyzed for hearing results, such as free-field hearing thresholds, direct bone conduction hearing thresholds, and speech discrimination scores with aided and unaided conditions Both magnetic and direct osseointegrated bone conduction implant systems, as well as the Softband system, provide good hearing outcomes when compared with unaided performance; however, the abutment connection system gives better hearing thresholds in the higher frequencies. No significant difference in hearing gain was found between the Softband system, magnet 5, and magnet used by the patient. Magnetic and direct bone conduction hearing implant systems are both effective for rehabilitation of conductive and mixed hearing loss when conventional hearing aids cannot be used. However, patients with high-frequency hearing loss may be better suited to an abutment connection system if they are not satisfied with high-frequency hearing gains provided via the trial Softband system preoperatively and should be counseled accordingly.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M (2015) New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl) 16(8):79–93CrossRef Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M (2015) New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl) 16(8):79–93CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kiringoda R, Lustig LR (2013) A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 34:790–794CrossRefPubMed Kiringoda R, Lustig LR (2013) A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 34:790–794CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Fan Y, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang P, Zhu XL, Yang H, Chen XW, Gao ZQ (2013) Prevention and treatment of skin complications following BAHA implantation. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 48:798–801PubMed Fan Y, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang P, Zhu XL, Yang H, Chen XW, Gao ZQ (2013) Prevention and treatment of skin complications following BAHA implantation. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 48:798–801PubMed
4.
go back to reference Hough J, Vernon J, Johnson B, Dormer K, Himelick T (1986) Experiences with implantable hearing devices and a presentation of a new device. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:60–65CrossRefPubMed Hough J, Vernon J, Johnson B, Dormer K, Himelick T (1986) Experiences with implantable hearing devices and a presentation of a new device. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:60–65CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Wade PS, Tollos SK, Naiberg J (1989) Clinical experience with the Xomed Audiant osteointegrated bone conducting hearing device: a preliminary report of seven cases. J Otolaryngol 18:79–84PubMed Wade PS, Tollos SK, Naiberg J (1989) Clinical experience with the Xomed Audiant osteointegrated bone conducting hearing device: a preliminary report of seven cases. J Otolaryngol 18:79–84PubMed
6.
go back to reference Işeri M, Orhan KS, Kara A, Durgut M, Oztürk M, Topdağ M, Calışkan S (2014) A new transcutaneous bone anchored hearing device–the Baha® Attract System: the first experience in Turkey. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 24:59–64CrossRefPubMed Işeri M, Orhan KS, Kara A, Durgut M, Oztürk M, Topdağ M, Calışkan S (2014) A new transcutaneous bone anchored hearing device–the Baha® Attract System: the first experience in Turkey. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 24:59–64CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Mulla O, Agada F, Reilly PG (2012) Introducing the Sophono Alpha 1 abutment free bone conduction hearing system. Clin Otolaryngol 37:168–169CrossRefPubMed Mulla O, Agada F, Reilly PG (2012) Introducing the Sophono Alpha 1 abutment free bone conduction hearing system. Clin Otolaryngol 37:168–169CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Zarowski AJ, Verstraeten N, Somers T, Riff D, Offeciers EF (2011) Headbands, testbands and softbands in preoperative testing and application of bone-anchored devices in adults and children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 71:124–131PubMed Zarowski AJ, Verstraeten N, Somers T, Riff D, Offeciers EF (2011) Headbands, testbands and softbands in preoperative testing and application of bone-anchored devices in adults and children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 71:124–131PubMed
10.
go back to reference Kurz A, Flynn M, Caversaccio M, Kompis M (2014) Speech understanding with a new implant technology: a comparative study with a new nonskin penetrating Baha system. BioMed Res Int 201:416205 Kurz A, Flynn M, Caversaccio M, Kompis M (2014) Speech understanding with a new implant technology: a comparative study with a new nonskin penetrating Baha system. BioMed Res Int 201:416205
11.
go back to reference Håkansson B, Tjellström A, Rosenhall U (1984) Hearing thresholds with direct bone conduction versus conventional bone conduction. Scand Audiol 13(1):3–13CrossRefPubMed Håkansson B, Tjellström A, Rosenhall U (1984) Hearing thresholds with direct bone conduction versus conventional bone conduction. Scand Audiol 13(1):3–13CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Van der Pouw CT, Snik AF, Cremers CW (1999) The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 24:171–176CrossRefPubMed Van der Pouw CT, Snik AF, Cremers CW (1999) The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 24:171–176CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Heywood RL, Patel PM, Jonathan DA (2011) Comparison of hearing thresholds obtained with Baha preoperative assessment tools and those obtained with the osseointegrated implant. Ear Nose Throat J 90:E21–E27PubMed Heywood RL, Patel PM, Jonathan DA (2011) Comparison of hearing thresholds obtained with Baha preoperative assessment tools and those obtained with the osseointegrated implant. Ear Nose Throat J 90:E21–E27PubMed
14.
go back to reference Monini S, Filippi C, Atturo F, Biagini M, Lazzarino AI, Barbara M (2015) Individualised headband simulation test for predicting outcome after percutaneous bone conductive implantation. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 35:258–264PubMedPubMedCentral Monini S, Filippi C, Atturo F, Biagini M, Lazzarino AI, Barbara M (2015) Individualised headband simulation test for predicting outcome after percutaneous bone conductive implantation. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 35:258–264PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Comparing audiological test results obtained from a sound processor attached to a Softband with direct and magnetic passive bone conduction hearing implant systems
Authors
Ahmet Kara
Mete Iseri
Merve Durgut
Murat Topdag
Murat Ozturk
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4123-1

Other articles of this Issue 12/2016

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 12/2016 Go to the issue