Comparison of Functional Results of Patients with an Active Middle Ear Implant (Vibrant Soundbridge) and Semi-Implantable Bone Conduction Device (Bonebridge)

Introduction In patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (MHL), when conventional hearing aids are insufficient, or patients are unable to wear them, hearing rehabilitation with an implantable bone conduction device is indicated. The adequate choice of the right bone conduction device bears challenges in some patients. The present study is the first to investigate and compare audiometric results of adult patients with an active middle ear implant (Vibrant Soundbridge=VSB) or a semi-implantable bone conduction device (Bonebridge=BB).

Methods Retrospective analysis of 20 consecutive patients (24 ears), who received either a VSB (n=13) or a BB (n=11) due to MHL with comparison of demographic characteristics (number of previous ear surgeries, tympanomastoid cavity, diagnosis/hearing contralateral ear), and audiometric results (air-bone gap (ABG), functional gain (FG), Freiburg Monosyllabic Test at 65 dB hearing level (HL) in quiet, Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) in noise).

Results Analysis showed no significant differences with regard to both pre-, and postoperative audiometric results (ABG: VSB from 36.2±11.0 dB HL to 4.6±6.0 dB HL; BB from 31.5±9.4 dB HL to 3.4±5.8 dB HL; p=0.702; FG: VSB 33.4±12.6 dB HL; 26.1±11.7 dB HL; p=0.192; Freiburg Test: VSB from 25.0±26.1% to 83.0±15.6%; BB from 15.5±17.4% to 83.6±14.2%; OLSA: VSB from -0.1±4.3 SNR to -2.7±3.0 SNR; BB from 2.3±3.5 SNR from -1.4±3.6 SNR). In 4 patients the VSB was explanted due to insufficient functioning, and they received a BB in the course of disease.

Conclusions Considering the more challenging and complex surgical technique of the VSB, in comparison to the BB, with similar functional results, the responsible surgeon has to make sure to counsel the patient cautiously, and choose the device carefully.

Poster-PDF A-1655.PDF

Publication History

Article published online:
10 June 2020