Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; 26(03): e505-e512
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1742352
Systematic Reviews

Complications of Transcutaneous Protheses – A Systematic Review of Publications Over the Past 10 Years

Marcos Antonio de Souza 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Santiago Luis Vallejos Riart 
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Universidad Nacional de Asunción (UNA), San Lorenzo, Central, Paraguay
,
Stephanie Rugeri de Souza
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Rubens de Brito 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Ricardo Ferreira Bento 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Bone conduction implants, responsible for transmitting sound from an external processor to the inner ear, can be divided into active and passive, depending on the vibratory stimulus location. The use of transcutaneous device has increased, given its aesthetic appeal, the complications and limitations of percutaneous devices, and patient's treatment adherence, focusing mainly on efficacy. However, various complications are associated with the use of transcutaneous prosthesis, which can often be serious.

Objective To approach the literature on complications involving transcutaneous bone-anchored prostheses through a systematic review of articles published in the past 10 years (2011–2021).

Data Synthesis The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. All articles written in English reporting on currently available transcutaneous prosthesis implantation and its complications were selected. Studies on both children and adults were included. The data on complications were extracted, and complications were classified as minor or major and associated to each device used. Thirty-seven articles were included in the study, of which 14 were prospective cohort studies, 22 were retrospective case series, and 1 was a case report. Most studies (18) included both adults and children. Moreover, 901 implantations were performed, of which 552 implanted Baha Attract (Cochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia), 244 implanted BoneBridge (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria), and 105 implanted Sophono (Sophono Inc., Boulder, CO, USA]). Furthermore, 192 adverse events were reported (total complication rate, 21.3%), with 161 minor complications (84.3%) and 31 major complications (16.1%).

Conclusion Transcutaneous prosthesis is an audiological alternative with fewer complications than percutaneous prosthesis. However, its indication should be judicious because complications are common, and although most complications are minor, serious infections requiring explantation may develop.

Keywords

Baha Attract - BoneBridge - Sophono - bone-conduction implant - transcutaneous


Publication History

Received: 06 July 2021

Accepted: 20 October 2021

Article published online:
04 February 2022

© 2022. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Berger KW. Early bone conduction hearing aid devices. Arch Otolaryngol 1976; 102 (05) 315-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Perciaccante A, Coralli A, Bauman NG. Beethoven: His hearing loss and his hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (09) 1305-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kara A, Iseri M, Durgut M, Topdag M, Ozturk M. 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 2016; 273 (12) 4193-4198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ngui LX, Tang IP. Bonebridge transcutaneous bone conduction implant in children with congenital aural atresia: surgical and audiological outcomes. J Laryngol Otol 2018; 132 (08) 693-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Reinfeldt S, Håkansson B, Taghavi H, Eeg-Olofsson M. New developments in bone-conduction hearing implants: a review. Med Devices (Auckl) 2015; 8: 79-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dumper J, Hodgetts B, Liu R, Brandner N. Indications for bone-anchored hearing AIDS: a functional outcomes study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 38 (01) 96-105
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Bento RF, Kiesewetter A, Ikari LS, Brito R. Bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA): indications, functional results, and comparison with reconstructive surgery of the ear. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 16 (03) 400-405
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lavilla Martín de Valmaseda MJ, Cavalle Garrido L, Huarte Irujo A. et al. Clinical guideline on bone conduction implants. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2019; 70 (02) 105-111
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ellsperman SE, Nairn EM, Stucken EZ. Review of bone conduction hearing devices. audiology research. Audiology Res 2021; 11 (02) 207-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Siau RT, Dhillon B, Siau D, Green KM. Bone-anchored hearing aids in conductive and mixed hearing losses: why do patients reject them?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (10) 3117-3122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dun CAJ, Faber HT, de Wolf MJF, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW, Hol MK. Assessment of more than 1,000 implanted percutaneous bone conduction devices: skin reactions and implant survival. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (02) 192-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kiringoda R, Lustig LR. A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (05) 790-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 den Besten CA, Nelissen RC, Peer PG. et al. A retrospective cohort study on the influence of comorbidity on soft tissue reactions, revision surgery, and implant loss in bone-anchored hearing implants. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (05) 812-818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mohamad S, Khan I, Hey SY, Hussain SS. A systematic review on skin complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in relation to surgical techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (03) 559-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Marfatia H, Shah K, Shelke S, Krishnan K. Baha Attract: our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 69 (04) 544-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sharma S, Bulstrode N, Marshall A. Implantation and positioning of a transcutaneous magnetic bone conduction hearing system for children with microtia in preparation for auricular reconstruction. Clin Otolaryngol 2018; 43 (02) 779-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hol MKS, Nelissen RC, Agterberg MJH, Cremers CW, Snik AF. Comparison between a new implantable transcutaneous bone conductor and percutaneous bone-conduction hearing implant. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (06) 1071-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Iseri M, Orhan KS, Tuncer U. et al. Transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids versus percutaneous ones. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (05) 849-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Brkic FF, Riss D, Scheuba K. et al. Medical, technical and audiological outcomes of hearing rehabilitation with the bonebridge transcutaneous bone-conduction implant: A single-center experience. J Clin Med 2019; 8 (10) 1614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 O'Niel MB, Runge CL, Friedland DR, Kerschner JE. Patient outcomes in magnet based implantable auditory assist devices. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 140 (06) 513-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Zernotti ME, Chiaraviglio MM, Mauricio SB, Tabernero PA, Zernotti M, Di Gregorio MF. Audiological outcomes in patients with congenital aural atresia implanted with transcutaneous active bone conduction hearing implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 119: 54-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zernotti ME, Di Gregorio MF, Galeazzi P, Tabernero P. Comparative outcomes of active and passive hearing devices by transcutaneous bone conduction. Acta Otolaryngol 2016; 136 (06) 556-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kruyt IJ, Monksfield P, Skarzynski PH. et al. Results of a 2-year prospective multicenter study evaluating long-term audiological and clinical outcomes of a transcutaneous implant for bone conduction hearing. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (07) 901-911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gawęcki W, Balcerowiak A, Kalinowicz E, Wróbel M. Evaluation of surgery and surgical results of Baha® Attract system implantations - single centre experience of hundred twenty five cases. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2019; 85 (05) 597-602
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Shin JW, Kim SH, Choi JY. et al. Surgical and audiologic comparison between sophono and bone-anchored hearing aids implantation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 9 (01) 21-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Marsella P, Scorpecci A, Vallarino MV, Di Fiore S, Pacifico C. Sophono in pediatric patients: The experience of an Italian tertiary care center. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 151 (02) 328-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Seiwerth I, Fröhlich L, Schilde S, Götze G, Plontke SK, Rahne T. Clinical and functional results after implantation of the bonebridge, a semi-implantable, active transcutaneous bone conduction device, in children and adults. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; Jan; 279 (01) 101-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hobson JC, Roper AJ, Andrew R, Rothera MP, Hill P, Green KM. Complications of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2010; 124 (02) 132-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Goycoolea M, Ribalta G, Tocornal F. et al. Clinical performance of the Osia™ system, a new active osseointegrated implant system. Results from a prospective clinical investigation. Acta Otolaryngol 2020; 140 (03) 212-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sprinzl GM, Wolf-Magele A. The Bonebridge Bone Conduction Hearing Implant: indication criteria, surgery and a systematic review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol 2016; 41 (02) 131-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lin J, Chen S, Zhang H. et al. Application of Implantable Hearing Aids and Bone Conduction Implant System in patients with bilateral congenital deformation of the external and middle ear. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 119: 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mylanus EAM, Hua H, Wigren S. et al. Multicenter clinical investigation of a new active osseointegrated steady-state implant system. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (09) 1249-1257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar