Initial Experience With Two Active Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants. Issue 10 (8th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schwam, Zachary G.; Perez, Enrique R.; Oh, Samuel; Wong, Kevin; Fan, Caleb; Cosetti, Maura K.; Wanna, George B.
• Is Part Of: Otology & neurotology. Volume 43:Issue 10(2022)
• Page Start: 1212
• Page End: 1215
• Publication Date: 2022-12-08
• Subjects: BAHA -- Bone-anchored hearing implant -- Hearing loss -- Osseointegration; Otology -- Periodicals; Ear -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Skull base -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.8005
• DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003681
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1531-7129

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To analyze our institutional experience with two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary academic otology-neurotology practice. Patients: Patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses meeting criteria to receive active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Interventions: Implantation with one of two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids. Outcome Measures: Operative time, dural exposure and decompression, use of lifts, implant position, ease of use, qualitative patient satisfaction, complication rates. Results: Ten patients received Implant 1 and 11 patients received Implant 2. The most common underlying etiologies of hearing loss were chronic suppurative otitis media in 33.3%, atresia/microtia in 23.8%, and cholesteatoma in 23.8%. Average operative times were 99.3 minutes for Implant 1 and 80.9 minutes for Implant 2 ( p = 0.263). Implant 1 required lifts in 60%, dural exposure in 50%, and dural compression in 30%. Overall, placement was difficult in 47.6% of cases. There were no intraoperative complications. There were higher rates of issues with sound quality (27.3% versus 0.0%, p = 0.123) and poor cosmesis (36.4% versus 10.0%, p = 0.360) with Implant 2. Functional gain was not recorded, but all patients derived qualitative benefit from their implant. Three patients had local wound complications that self-resolved or were treated with antibiotics. One patient implanted at an outside institution required explant because of multiple infections. Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes comparing Implants 1 and 2; however, Implant 2 had much higher rates of issues with audio quality and poor cosmesis. Placing Implant 1 often required special techniques.