First United Kingdom experience of the novel Osia active transcutaneous piezoelectric bone conduction implant
- PMID: 32405815
- DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06022-7
First United Kingdom experience of the novel Osia active transcutaneous piezoelectric bone conduction implant
Abstract
Purpose: Bone conduction hearing devices are widely used and indicated in cases of conductive, mixed or single-sided deafness where the conventional hearing aids are not indicated or tolerated. This prospective study aims to investigate the surgical and hearing outcomes of a novel active piezoelectric transcutaneous bone conduction device (t-BCD).
Methods: Prospective data were collected from the first 10 patients who underwent implantation with the t-BCD Osia (Cochlear, Australia) (between Dec 2018 and March 2019) in a tertiary referral centre. The main outcome measures include: surgical outcome, free field speech testing with speech recognition thresholds, audiological gain and patient-reported outcomes including the 'Glasgow Benefit Inventory' (GBI) and the 'Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI).
Results: The mean length of surgery was 70.6 min (range 50-87, SD = 9.5). Mean skin thickness measured was 5.6 mm (range 4-8, SD = 1.1). There were two post-operative wound infections which settled conservatively. One required revision surgery to thin skin. The average gain in hearing with the implant was + 39.4 dB. Pre-implantation mean unaided SRT was 38.1 dB (SD = 7.8) and the post-implantation mean-aided SRT was 22.7 dB (SD = 4.6) (p = 0.000078). There was improvement in COSI domains. The mean Glasgow disability score dropped from 52% pre-implantation to 20% post-implantation (p = 0.001).
Conclusions: This new active t-BCHD provides excellent audiological gain and improvement in speech recognition. Patient-reported outcomes have also been very positive. The surgery was straightforward with no major surgical complications reported. Further studies will be required to examine long-term outcomes in larger number of patients.
Keywords: Active; Bone conduction device; Hearing aid; Hearing loss; Transcutaneous.
References
-
- de Wolf MJ, Hendrix S, Cremers CW, Snik AF (2011) Better performance with bone-anchored hearing aid than acoustic devices in patients with severe air-bone gap. Laryngoscope 121(3):613–616 - DOI
-
- Wazen JJ, Spitzer JB, Ghossaini SN et al (2003) Transcranial contralateral cochlear stimulation in unilateral deafness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129(3):248–254 - DOI
-
- Kim G, Ju HM, Lee SH, Kim HS, Kwon JA, Seo YJ (2017) Efficacy of bone-anchored hearing aids in single-sided deafness: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol 38(4):473–483 - DOI
-
- Shapiro S, Ramadan J, Cassis A (2018) BAHA skin complications in the pediatric population: systematic review with meta-analysis. Otol Neurotol 39(7):865–873 - DOI
-
- Steehler MW, Larner SP, Mintz JS, Steehler MK, Lipman SP, Griffith S (2018) A comparison of the operative techniques and the postoperative complications for bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 22(4):368–373 - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
