Surgical and Audiologic Comparison Between Sophono and Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids Implantation
2
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives. Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA) occasionally cause soft tissue problems due to abutment. Because Sophono does not have abutment penetrating skin, it is thought that Sophono has no soft tissue problem relating to abutment. On the other hand, transcutaneous device’s output is reported to be 10 to 15 dB lower than percutaneous device. Therefore, in this study, Sophono and BAHA were compared to each other from surgical and audiological points of view. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 9 Sophono patients and 10 BAHA patients. In BAHA cases, single vertical incision without skin thinning technique was done. We compared Sophono to BAHA by operation time, wound healing time, postoperative complications, postoperative hearing gain after switch on, and postoperative air-bone gap. Results. The mean operation time was 60 minutes for Sophono and 25 minutes for BAHA. The wound healing time was 14 days for Sophono and 28 days for BAHA. No major intraoperative complication was observed. Skin problem was not observed in the 2 devices for the follow-up period. Postoperative hearing gain of bilateral aural atresia patients was 39.4 dB for BAHA (n=4) and 25.5 dB for Sophono (n=5). However, the difference was not statistically significant. In all patients included in this study, the difference of air-bone gap between two groups was 16.6 dB at 0.5 kHz and 18.2 dB at 4 kHz. BAHA was statistically significantly better than Sophono. Conclusion. Considering the audiologic outcome, BAHA users were thought to have more audiologic benefit than Sophono users. However, Sophono had advantages over BAHA with abutment in cosmetic outcome. Sophono needed no daily skin maintenance and soft tissue complication due to abutment would not happen in Sophono. Therefore, a full explanation about each device is necessary before deciding implantation.
Abstract
Objectives. Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA) occasionally cause soft tissue problems due to abutment. Because Sophono does not have abutment penetrating skin, it is thought that Sophono has no soft tissue problem relating to abutment. On the other hand, transcutaneous device’s output is reported to be 10 to 15 dB lower than percutaneous device. Therefore, in this study, Sophono and BAHA were compared to each other from surgical and audiological points of view. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 9 Sophono patients and 10 BAHA patients. In BAHA cases, single vertical incision without skin thinning technique was done. We compared Sophono to BAHA by operation time, wound healing time, postoperative complications, postoperative hearing gain after switch on, and postoperative air-bone gap. Results. The mean operation time was 60 minutes for Sophono and 25 minutes for BAHA. The wound healing time was 14 days for Sophono and 28 days for BAHA. No major intraoperative complication was observed. Skin problem was not observed in the 2 devices for the follow-up period. Postoperative hearing gain of bilateral aural atresia patients was 39.4 dB for BAHA (n=4) and 25.5 dB for Sophono (n=5). However, the difference was not statistically significant. In all patients included in this study, the difference of air-bone gap between two groups was 16.6 dB at 0.5 kHz and 18.2 dB at 4 kHz. BAHA was statistically significantly better than Sophono. Conclusion. Considering the audiologic outcome, BAHA users were thought to have more audiologic benefit than Sophono users. However, Sophono had advantages over BAHA with abutment in cosmetic outcome. Sophono needed no daily skin maintenance and soft tissue complication due to abutment would not happen in Sophono. Therefore, a full explanation about each device is necessary before deciding implantation.
참고문헌 (13)
- House JW,, "Bone-anchored hearing aids : incidence and management of postoperative complications", Otol Neurotol, 28(2), pp.213~217 (2007)
- Wazen JJ., "Successes and complications of the Baha system", Otol Neurotol, 29(8), pp.1115~1119 (2008)
- Hol MK., "Comparison between a new implantable transcutaneous bone conductor and percutaneous bone-conduction hearing implant", Otol Neurotol, 34(6), pp.1071~1075 (2013)
- Zwartenkot JW., "Amplification options for patients with mixed hearing loss", Otol Neurotol, 35(2), pp.221~226 (2014)
- 신중욱, "연조직 제거 없이 단순수직절개를 통한 Bone Anchored Hearing Aid 시술", 대한이비인후과학회지 두경부외과학, 55(3), pp.151~154 (2012), 대한이비인후과학회
- Hultcrantz M, "Outcome of the bone-anchored hearing aid procedure without skin thinning : a prospective clinical trial", Otol Neurotol, 32(7), pp.1134~1139 (2011)
- Soo GM., "The Hong Kong incision (direct percutaneous Baha surgery without soft tissue reduction or skin grafting): early results", The 2nd International Symposium on Bone Conduction Hearing - Craniofacial osseo-integration, pp.33~34 (2009)
- Siegert R, "Partially implantable bone conduction hearing aids without a percutaneous abutment(Otomag) : technique and preliminary clinical results", Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 71, pp.41~46 (2011)
- O’Niel MB., "Patient outcomes in magnet-based implantable auditory assist devices", JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 140(6), pp.513~520 (2014)
- Magliulo G., "Sophono Alpha System and subtotal petrosectomy with external auditory canal blind sac closure", Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 272(9), pp.2183~2190 (2015)
- Denoyelle F., "New closed skin bone-anchored implant : preliminary results in 6 children with ear atresia", Otol Neurotol, 34(2), pp.275~281 (2013)
- Siegert R., "A new semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device : clinical, surgical, and audiologic outcomes in patients with congenital ear canal atresia", Otol Neurotol, 34(5), pp.927~934 (2013)
- Verstraeten N., "Comparison of the audiologic results obtained with the bone-anchored hearing aid attached to the headband, the testband, and to the"snap"abutment", Otol Neurotol, 30(1), pp.70~75 (2009)