Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T21:53:56.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Initial experience of a rapid-insertion bone-anchored hearing system: series of 20 consecutive implants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2014

S J Muzaffar ,
C J Coulson ,
S Burrell  and
A P Reid
S J Muzaffar
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
C J Coulson*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
S Burrell
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
A P Reid
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr C Coulson, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2WB, UK E-mail: christopher.coulson@uhb.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The loading of bone-anchored hearing system sound processors usually occurs two to three months after surgical implant. This study examined a new bone-anchored hearing system coupling mechanism that permits loading at two weeks post-implantation without compromising osseointegration.

Methods:

Twenty implants were implanted into 15 patients. The interval between operation and time of processor loading was recorded, along with the cause of any delay and any late complications.

Results:

Two patients were fitted with implants at seven and nine weeks. The delay was a result of administrative errors; the patients reported no skin problems. Of the remaining 17 implants, 8 processors were fitted at 2 weeks, 1 at 3 weeks, 4 at 4 weeks, 3 at 7 weeks and 1 at 8 weeks. For those nine implants fitted later than two weeks, the delay was because of incomplete skin healing.

Conclusion:

The Oticon Medical Xpress system allowed processor loading at two weeks post-operatively, providing skin healing was adequate. Early loading occurred in approximately half of the patients. All patients were fitted within the two to three months traditionally allowed. Prolonged skin healing time was the main reason for the delayed fitting of sound processors.

Keywords

OsseointegrationHearing LossHearing AidSurgical Procedures, Operative
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 4 , April 2014 , pp. 326 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Arunachalam, PS, Kilby, D, Meikle, D, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid quality of life assessed by the Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1260–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Hakansson, B. The future of bone conduction hearing devices. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;71:140–52Google Scholar
3Saroul, N, Mohamed, A, Yoann, P, Laurent, G, Thierry, M. Long-term benefit and sound localization in patients with single-sided deafness rehabilitated with an osseointegrated bone-conduction device. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:111–14Google Scholar
4George, A, Coulson, C, Ross, E, De, R. Single-stage BAHA and mastoid obliteration. Int J Otolaryngol 2012;2012:765271. Epub 2012 Oct 10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Battista, RA, Ho, S. The bone-anchored hearing device (BAHA). Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;14:272–6Google Scholar
6Rasmussen, J, Olsen, SO, Nielsen, LH. Evaluation of long-term patient satisfaction and experience with the BAHA bone conduction implant. Int J Audiol 2012;51:194–9Google Scholar
7Olsen, SO, Glad, H, Nielsen, LH. Comparison of two bone anchored hearing instruments: BP100 and Ponto Pro. Int J Audiol 2001;50:920–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Zeitler, DM, Snapp, HA, Angeli, S, Heman, BS, Plum, AW, Telischi, FF. Early loading after single-stage bone-anchored implantation in adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;144:402–7Google Scholar
9McLarnon, CM, Johnson, I, Davisson, T, Hill, J, Henderson, B, Leese, D et al. Evidence for early loading of osseointegrated implants for bone conduction at 4 weeks. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1578–82Google Scholar
10Dun, CAJ, Faber, HT, de Wolf, MJF, Mylanus, EAM, Cremers, CWRJ, Hol, MKS. Assessment of more than 1,000 implanted percutaneous bone conduction devices: skin reactions and implant survival. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:192–8Google Scholar
11Marsella, P, Scorpecci, A, D'Eredita, R, Della Volpe, A, Malerba, P. Stability of osseointegrated bone conduction systems in children: a pilot study. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:797–803Google Scholar
12Zeitler, DM, Herman, BS, Snapp, HA, Telischi, FF, Angeli, SI. Ethnic disparity in skin complications following bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2012;121:549–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Bovo, R. Simplified technique without skin flap for the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) implant. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2008;28:252–5Google Scholar
14D'Eritida, R, Caroncini, M, Saetti, R. The new BAHA implant: a prospective osseointegration study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;146:979–83Google Scholar
15Hultcrantz, M. Outcome of the bone-anchored hearing aid procedure without skin thinning: a prospective clinical trial. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1134–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed