Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 5/2023

01-11-2022 | Hearing Implant | Otology

A comparative study of audiological outcomes and compliance between the Osia system and other bone conduction hearing implants

Authors: Yehree Kim, Goun Choe, Heonjeong Oh, Byung Yoon Choi

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 5/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the subjective and objective audiological benefits of the Osia system compared to devices commonly implanted prior to the introduction of this system.

Methods

Osia recipients with either conductive hearing loss (CHL/MHL) (n = 9) or single-sided deafness (SSD) (n = 8) who underwent surgery from February 2021 to March 2022 were prospectively recruited. The audiological outcomes and usage rate of Osia implantees were compared with those of retrospectively recruited patients implanted with other devices (n = 50). The subjective satisfaction of the Osia implantees was also evaluated through questionnaires.

Results

All users of the Osia system were classified as regular users. In the CHL/MHL group, the effective gain of the Osia system (11.1 ± 14.9 dB) surpassed that of the Baha and Bonebridge (− 2.7 ± 12.6 dB) at 2 kHz (p = 0.01, Mann–Whitney U test). Among the devices, the Osia system tended to tolerate the worst bone conduction thresholds, up to the level of 61 dB. In the SSD group, the functional gain of Osia at 4 kHz (37.5 ± 3.1 dB) was higher than that of the Baha and Bonebridge group (26.9 ± 3.0 dB) (p = 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test).

Conclusion

The Osia system yielded larger audiological gain than the Baha Attract and Bonebridge devices, especially at high frequencies, leading to substantially higher compliance. The Osia system tended to have the strongest tolerance to aggravated bone conduction thresholds among the available transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants. Therefore, the Osia system could potentially be a good option for CHL/MHL patients with bone conduction thresholds of 50 dB HL or more, as well as patients with SSD.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kunst SJ, Leijendeckers JM, Mylanus EA, Hol MK, Snik AF, Cremers CWJO (2008) Bone-anchored hearing aid system application for unilateral congenital conductive hearing impairment: audiometric results. Neurotology 29:2–7CrossRef Kunst SJ, Leijendeckers JM, Mylanus EA, Hol MK, Snik AF, Cremers CWJO (2008) Bone-anchored hearing aid system application for unilateral congenital conductive hearing impairment: audiometric results. Neurotology 29:2–7CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Tietze L, Papsin B (2001) Utilization of bone-anchored hearing aids in children. Int J Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol 58:75–80CrossRef Tietze L, Papsin B (2001) Utilization of bone-anchored hearing aids in children. Int J Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol 58:75–80CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Goldstein MR, Bourn S, Jacob A (2021) Early Osia® 2 bone conduction hearing implant experience: nationwide controlled-market release data and single-center outcomes. Am J Otolaryngol 42:102818CrossRefPubMed Goldstein MR, Bourn S, Jacob A (2021) Early Osia® 2 bone conduction hearing implant experience: nationwide controlled-market release data and single-center outcomes. Am J Otolaryngol 42:102818CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference You P, Choi A, Drob J, Hunsaker SM, Liu Y-CC, Silva RJO (2022) Early outcomes of a new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant in pediatric patients. Neurotology 43:212–218CrossRef You P, Choi A, Drob J, Hunsaker SM, Liu Y-CC, Silva RJO (2022) Early outcomes of a new active transcutaneous bone conduction implant in pediatric patients. Neurotology 43:212–218CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rauch A-K, Wesarg T, Aschendorff A, Speck I, Arndt S (2021) Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 279:1–10 Rauch A-K, Wesarg T, Aschendorff A, Speck I, Arndt S (2021) Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 279:1–10
6.
go back to reference Edmiston R, Aggarwal R, Green K (2015) Bone conduction implants–a rapidly developing field. J Laryngol Otol 129:936–940CrossRefPubMed Edmiston R, Aggarwal R, Green K (2015) Bone conduction implants–a rapidly developing field. J Laryngol Otol 129:936–940CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Goycoolea M, Ribalta G, Tocornal F, Levy R, Alarcón P, Bryman M, Cagnacci B, Catenacci C, Oyanguren V, Vilches I (2020) Clinical performance of the Osia™ system, a new active osseointegrated implant system Results from a prospective clinical investigation. Acta Oto-Laryngol 140:212–219CrossRef Goycoolea M, Ribalta G, Tocornal F, Levy R, Alarcón P, Bryman M, Cagnacci B, Catenacci C, Oyanguren V, Vilches I (2020) Clinical performance of the Osia™ system, a new active osseointegrated implant system Results from a prospective clinical investigation. Acta Oto-Laryngol 140:212–219CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Han JJ, Park H-R, Song J-J, Koo J-W, Choi BY (2020) A comparison study of audiological outcome and compliance of bone conduction implantable hearing implants. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 277:3003–3012CrossRef Han JJ, Park H-R, Song J-J, Koo J-W, Choi BY (2020) A comparison study of audiological outcome and compliance of bone conduction implantable hearing implants. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 277:3003–3012CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Brooks D (1985) Factors relating to the under-use of postaural hearing aids. Br J Audiol 19:211–217CrossRefPubMed Brooks D (1985) Factors relating to the under-use of postaural hearing aids. Br J Audiol 19:211–217CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Rigato C, Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Jansson K-JF, Hol MK, Eeg-Olofsson M (2016) Audiometric comparison between the first patients with the transcutaneous bone conduction implant and matched percutaneous bone anchored hearing device users. Otol Neurotol 37:1381–1387CrossRefPubMed Rigato C, Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Jansson K-JF, Hol MK, Eeg-Olofsson M (2016) Audiometric comparison between the first patients with the transcutaneous bone conduction implant and matched percutaneous bone anchored hearing device users. Otol Neurotol 37:1381–1387CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Carlsson PU, Håkansson BE (1997) The bone-anchored hearing aid: reference quantities and functional gain. Ear Hear 18:34–41CrossRefPubMed Carlsson PU, Håkansson BE (1997) The bone-anchored hearing aid: reference quantities and functional gain. Ear Hear 18:34–41CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Busch S, Lenarz T, Maier H (2016) Comparison of alternative coupling methods of the vibrant soundbridge floating mass transducer. Audiol Neurotol 21:347–355CrossRef Busch S, Lenarz T, Maier H (2016) Comparison of alternative coupling methods of the vibrant soundbridge floating mass transducer. Audiol Neurotol 21:347–355CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Iseri M, Orhan KS, Tuncer U, Kara A, Durgut M, Guldiken Y, Surmelioglu O (2015) Transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids versus percutaneous ones: multicenter comparative clinical study. Otol Neurol 36:849–853CrossRef Iseri M, Orhan KS, Tuncer U, Kara A, Durgut M, Guldiken Y, Surmelioglu O (2015) Transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids versus percutaneous ones: multicenter comparative clinical study. Otol Neurol 36:849–853CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kim G, Ju HM, Lee SH, Kim H-S, Kwon JA, Seo Y (2017) Efficacy of bone-anchored hearing aids in single-sided deafness: a systematic review. Otol Neurol 38:473–483CrossRef Kim G, Ju HM, Lee SH, Kim H-S, Kwon JA, Seo Y (2017) Efficacy of bone-anchored hearing aids in single-sided deafness: a systematic review. Otol Neurol 38:473–483CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Andersen HT, Schrøder SA, Bonding P (2006) Unilateral deafness after acoustic neuroma surgery: subjective hearing handicap and the effect of the bone-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurol 27:809–814CrossRef Andersen HT, Schrøder SA, Bonding P (2006) Unilateral deafness after acoustic neuroma surgery: subjective hearing handicap and the effect of the bone-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurol 27:809–814CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Snapp HA, Holt FD, Liu X, Rajguru SM (2017) Comparison of speech in noise and localization benefits in unilateral hearing loss subjects using contralateral routing of signal hearing aids or bone anchored implants. Otol Neurotol 38:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Snapp HA, Holt FD, Liu X, Rajguru SM (2017) Comparison of speech in noise and localization benefits in unilateral hearing loss subjects using contralateral routing of signal hearing aids or bone anchored implants. Otol Neurotol 38:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Finbow J, Bance M, Aiken S, Gulliver M, Verge J, Caissie R (2015) A comparison between wireless CROS and bone-anchored hearing devices for single-sided deafness: a pilot study. Otol Neruol 36:819–825CrossRef Finbow J, Bance M, Aiken S, Gulliver M, Verge J, Caissie R (2015) A comparison between wireless CROS and bone-anchored hearing devices for single-sided deafness: a pilot study. Otol Neruol 36:819–825CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Shaw EA (1974) The external ear. Auditory system. Springer, New York, pp 455–490CrossRef Shaw EA (1974) The external ear. Auditory system. Springer, New York, pp 455–490CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparative study of audiological outcomes and compliance between the Osia system and other bone conduction hearing implants
Authors
Yehree Kim
Goun Choe
Heonjeong Oh
Byung Yoon Choi
Publication date
01-11-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Hearing Implant
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 5/2023
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07715-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2023

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 5/2023 Go to the issue