Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing audiological test results obtained from a sound processor attached to a Softband with direct and magnetic passive bone conduction hearing implant systems

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare audiological test results obtained from a sound processor (SP) attached to a Softband with those obtained from direct (abutment connection) bone conduction implant systems and magnetic passive bone conduction implant systems with different magnet strengths on patients implanted at our clinic. Twenty-four patients who were implanted with either an abutment or magnetic bone conduction implant system between January 2012 and December 2014 were analyzed for hearing results, such as free-field hearing thresholds, direct bone conduction hearing thresholds, and speech discrimination scores with aided and unaided conditions Both magnetic and direct osseointegrated bone conduction implant systems, as well as the Softband system, provide good hearing outcomes when compared with unaided performance; however, the abutment connection system gives better hearing thresholds in the higher frequencies. No significant difference in hearing gain was found between the Softband system, magnet 5, and magnet used by the patient. Magnetic and direct bone conduction hearing implant systems are both effective for rehabilitation of conductive and mixed hearing loss when conventional hearing aids cannot be used. However, patients with high-frequency hearing loss may be better suited to an abutment connection system if they are not satisfied with high-frequency hearing gains provided via the trial Softband system preoperatively and should be counseled accordingly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M (2015) New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl) 16(8):79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kiringoda R, Lustig LR (2013) A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 34:790–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fan Y, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang P, Zhu XL, Yang H, Chen XW, Gao ZQ (2013) Prevention and treatment of skin complications following BAHA implantation. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 48:798–801

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hough J, Vernon J, Johnson B, Dormer K, Himelick T (1986) Experiences with implantable hearing devices and a presentation of a new device. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:60–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wade PS, Tollos SK, Naiberg J (1989) Clinical experience with the Xomed Audiant osteointegrated bone conducting hearing device: a preliminary report of seven cases. J Otolaryngol 18:79–84

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Işeri M, Orhan KS, Kara A, Durgut M, Oztürk M, Topdağ M, Calışkan S (2014) A new transcutaneous bone anchored hearing device–the Baha® Attract System: the first experience in Turkey. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 24:59–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mulla O, Agada F, Reilly PG (2012) Introducing the Sophono Alpha 1 abutment free bone conduction hearing system. Clin Otolaryngol 37:168–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zernotti ME, Sarasty AB (2015) Active bone conduction prosthesis: bonebridgeTM. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 19(4):343–348

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Zarowski AJ, Verstraeten N, Somers T, Riff D, Offeciers EF (2011) Headbands, testbands and softbands in preoperative testing and application of bone-anchored devices in adults and children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 71:124–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kurz A, Flynn M, Caversaccio M, Kompis M (2014) Speech understanding with a new implant technology: a comparative study with a new nonskin penetrating Baha system. BioMed Res Int 201:416205

    Google Scholar 

  11. Håkansson B, Tjellström A, Rosenhall U (1984) Hearing thresholds with direct bone conduction versus conventional bone conduction. Scand Audiol 13(1):3–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Van der Pouw CT, Snik AF, Cremers CW (1999) The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 24:171–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heywood RL, Patel PM, Jonathan DA (2011) Comparison of hearing thresholds obtained with Baha preoperative assessment tools and those obtained with the osseointegrated implant. Ear Nose Throat J 90:E21–E27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Monini S, Filippi C, Atturo F, Biagini M, Lazzarino AI, Barbara M (2015) Individualised headband simulation test for predicting outcome after percutaneous bone conductive implantation. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 35:258–264

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey

    Ahmet Kara

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Mete Iseri, Merve Durgut, Murat Topdag & Murat Ozturk

Authors
  1. Ahmet Kara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mete Iseri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Merve Durgut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Murat Topdag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Murat Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Kara.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The research protocol was approved by the Kocaeli University Ethics Committee and performed in accordance with the ethical regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki and Turkish law and regulations. (KOÜ HAYDEK 2014/331).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kara, A., Iseri, M., Durgut, M. et al. Comparing audiological test results obtained from a sound processor attached to a Softband with direct and magnetic passive bone conduction hearing implant systems. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273, 4193–4198 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4123-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4123-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation