Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
COMPARISON OF ADHESIVE AND PASSIVE TRANSCUTANEOUS BONE CONDUCTION SYSTEMS IN ATRETIC CHILDREN
1
Otorhinolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Spain
2
Otorhinolaryngology, La Fe University Hospital, Spain
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Submission date: 2022-07-11
Acceptance date: 2022-11-23
Online publication date: 2022-12-29
Publication date: 2022-12-29
Corresponding author
María Fernanda Pedrero Escalas
Otorhinolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de la Castellana 261, 28046, Madrid, Spain
Otorhinolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de la Castellana 261, 28046, Madrid, Spain
J Hear Sci 2022;12(4):47-54
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
In 2017, the first adhesive bone conduction device (aBCD) was introduced. Since then, clinical studies have extensively compared adhesive bone conduction devices to conventional bone conduction systems on softbands. The aim of this study is to evaluate the audiological and subjective outcomes of patients suffering from conductive hearing loss (CHL) who used an aBCD for a trial period, comparing outcomes with their existing passive transcutaneous bone conduction implants (ptBCI), which was either the Sophono Alpha or the BAHA Attract.
Material and methods:
This prospective study included 14 congenital aural atresia patients between 7 and 16 years old. Participants had been ptBCI users for at least 2 years and had bone conduction thresholds ≤ 25 dB HL. The aBCD trial was for 1 week. Average pure tone thresholds (PTA4) and word recognition scores (WRS) with disyllabic words at 65 dB SPL in quiet and in noise were measured for each device. Subjective outcomes were recorded using the aBCD mini questionnaire and the SSQ questionnaire for hearing satisfaction, which were filled in by parents.
Results:
We analyzed 16 ears. The mean sound field PTA4 was 52 dB HL unaided, 27 dB HL ptBCI-aided and 29 dB HL aBCD-aided. Mean WRS in quiet was 96% with ptBCI and 95% with BCD. In noise (+5 dB SNR) the mean WRS was 70% with ptBCI and 77% with aBCD. A questionnaire revealed easy handling and good acceptance of the aBCD.
Conclusions:
In this group of patients, comparable audiological and subjective satisfaction results were achieved with a non-implantable adhesive bone conduction device. Despite differences in handling, the adhesive BCD presents itself as an alternative to transcutaneous bone conduction implants.
In 2017, the first adhesive bone conduction device (aBCD) was introduced. Since then, clinical studies have extensively compared adhesive bone conduction devices to conventional bone conduction systems on softbands. The aim of this study is to evaluate the audiological and subjective outcomes of patients suffering from conductive hearing loss (CHL) who used an aBCD for a trial period, comparing outcomes with their existing passive transcutaneous bone conduction implants (ptBCI), which was either the Sophono Alpha or the BAHA Attract.
Material and methods:
This prospective study included 14 congenital aural atresia patients between 7 and 16 years old. Participants had been ptBCI users for at least 2 years and had bone conduction thresholds ≤ 25 dB HL. The aBCD trial was for 1 week. Average pure tone thresholds (PTA4) and word recognition scores (WRS) with disyllabic words at 65 dB SPL in quiet and in noise were measured for each device. Subjective outcomes were recorded using the aBCD mini questionnaire and the SSQ questionnaire for hearing satisfaction, which were filled in by parents.
Results:
We analyzed 16 ears. The mean sound field PTA4 was 52 dB HL unaided, 27 dB HL ptBCI-aided and 29 dB HL aBCD-aided. Mean WRS in quiet was 96% with ptBCI and 95% with BCD. In noise (+5 dB SNR) the mean WRS was 70% with ptBCI and 77% with aBCD. A questionnaire revealed easy handling and good acceptance of the aBCD.
Conclusions:
In this group of patients, comparable audiological and subjective satisfaction results were achieved with a non-implantable adhesive bone conduction device. Despite differences in handling, the adhesive BCD presents itself as an alternative to transcutaneous bone conduction implants.
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Moeller MP, Tomblin JB. An introduction to the outcomes of children with hearing loss study. Ear Hear, 2015; 36 (Suppl 1): 4–13.Tomblin JB, Harrison M, Ambrose SE, Walker EA, Oleson JJ, Moeller MP. Language outcomes in young children with mild to severe hearing loss. Ear Hear, 2015; 36 (Suppl.1): 76–91.
2.
Neumann K, Thomas JP, Voelter C, Dazer S. A new adhesive bone conduction hearing system effectively treats conductive hearing loss in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2019; 122: 117–25.
3.
Favoreel A, Heuninck E, Mansbach AL. Audiological benefit and subjective satisfaction of children with the ADHEAR audio processor and adhesive adapter. Int J of Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2020; 129: 109729.
4.
Nelissen RC, Agterberg MJH, Hol MKS, Snik AF. Three-year experience with the Sophono in children with congenital conductive unilateral hearing loss: tolerability, audiometry, and sound localization compared to a bone-anchored hearing aid. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2016; 273: 3149–56.
5.
Westerkull P. An adhesive bone conduction system, ADHEAR, a new treatment option for conductive hearing losses. J Hear Sci, 2018; 8(2): 35–43.
6.
Urík M, Hošnová D, Šlapák I, Jančíková J, Odstrčilík J, Jarkovský J, et al. First experiences with a new adhesive bone conduction hearing device in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2019; 126: 109614.
7.
Denoyelle F, Coudert C, Thierry B, Parodi M, Mazzaschi O, Vicaut E, et al. Hearing rehabilitation with the closed skin bone-anchored implant Sophono Alpha 1: results of a prospective study in 15 children with ear atresia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2015; 79: 382–7.
8.
Zernotti ME, Di Gregorio MF, Galeazzi P, Tabernero P. Comparative outcomes of active and passive hearing devices by transcutaneous bone conduction. Acta Otolaryngol, 2016; 136: 556–8.
9.
Osborne MS, Child-Hymas A, Gill J, Osborne MS, Child-Hymas A, Gill J, et al. First pediatric experience with a novel, adhesive adapter retained, bone conduction hearing aid system. Otol Neurotol, 2019; 40(9): 1199–207.
10.
Dahm V, Baumgartner WD, Liepins R, Arnoldner C, Riss D. First results with a new, pressure-free, adhesive bone conduction hearing aid. Otol Neurotol, 2018; 39(6): 748–54.
11.
Canale A, Boggio V, Albera A, Ravera M, Caranzano F, Lacilla M, et al. A new bone conduction hearing aid to predict hearing outcome with an active implanted device. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2019; 276(8): 2165–70.
12.
Skarzynski PH, Ratuszniak A, Osinska K, Koziel M, Krol B, Cywka KB, et al. A comparative study of a novel adhesive bone conduction device and conventional treatment options for conductive hearing loss. Otol Neurotol, 2019; 40(7): 858–64.
13.
De Cardenas M, Marrero V. Logoaudiometry notebook. Madrid: National University of Distance Education; 1994.
14.
Tyler RS, Perreau AE, Ji H. Validation of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire. Ear Hear, 2009; 30(4): 466–74.
15.
Dimitriadis PA, Carrick S, Ray J. Intermediate outcomes of a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing device in a paediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2017; 94: 59–63.
16.
Cooper T, McDonald B, Ho A. Passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol, 2017; 38(9): 1225–32.
17.
Giannantonio S, Scorpecci A, Pacifico C, Marsella P. A functional and anatomical comparison between two passive transcutaneous bone conduction implants in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2018; 108: 202–7.
18.
Gawliczek T, Wimmer W, Munzinger F, Caversaccio M, Kompis M. Speech understanding and sound localization with a new nonimplantable wearing option for Baha. Biomed Res Int, 2018; 2018: 5264124.
19.
Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M. New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl), 2015; 8: 79–93.
20.
Gawliczek T, Munzinger F, Anschuetz L, Caversaccio M, Kompis M, Wimmer W. Unilateral and bilateral audiological benefit with an adhesively attached, noninvasive bone conduction hearing system. Otol Neurotol, 2018; 39(8): 1025–30.
21.
Edmiston RC, Aggarwal R, Green KM. Bone conduction implants: a rapidly developing field. J Laryngol Otol, 2015; 129: 936–40.
22.
Mertens G, Gilles A, Bouzegta R, Van de Heyning P. A prospective randomized crossover study in single sided deafness on the new non-invasive adhesive bone conduction hearing system. Otol Neurotol, 2018; 39(8): 940–9.
23.
Nelson AL, Cohen JT, Greenberg D, Kent DM. Much cheaper, almost as good: decrementally cost-effective medical innovation. Ann Intern Med, 2009; 151(9): 662–7.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
