Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2016 Jul;37(6):685-91.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001010.

Comparison of Audiological Results Between a Transcutaneous and a Percutaneous Bone Conduction Instrument in Conductive Hearing Loss

Affiliations
Observational Study

Comparison of Audiological Results Between a Transcutaneous and a Percutaneous Bone Conduction Instrument in Conductive Hearing Loss

Timo Gerdes et al. Otol Neurotol. 2016 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: In conductive, mixed hearing losses and single-sided-deafness bone-anchored hearing aids are a well-established treatment. The transcutaneous transmission across the intact skin avoids the percutaneous abutment of a bone-anchored device with the usual risk of infections and requires less care.In this study, the audiological results of the Bonebridge transcutaneous bone conduction implant (MED-EL) are compared to the generally used percutaneous device BP100 (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia).

Methods: Ten patients implanted with the transcutaneous hearing implant were compared to 10 matched patients implanted with a percutaneous device. Tests included pure-tone AC and BC thresholds and unaided and aided sound field thresholds. Speech intelligibility was determined in quiet using the Freiburg monosyllable test and in noise with the Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA) in sound field with speech from the front (S0). The subjective benefit was assessed with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit.

Results: In comparison with the unaided condition there was a significant improvement in aided thresholds, word recognition scores (WRS), and speech reception thresholds (SRT) in noise, measured in sound field, for both devices. The comparison of the two devices revealed a minor but not significant difference in functional gain (Bonebridge: PTA = 27.5 dB [mean]; BAHA: PTA = 26.3 dB [mean]). No significant difference between the two devices was found when comparing the improvement in WRSs and SRTs (Bonebridge: improvement WRS = 80% [median], improvement SRT = 6.5 dB SNR [median]; BAHA: improvement WRS = 77.5% [median], BAHA: improvement SRT = 6.9 dB SNR [median]).

Conclusion: Our data show that the transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant is an audiologically equivalent alternative to percutaneous bone-anchored devices in conductive hearing loss with a minor sensorineural hearing loss component.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources