Otol Neurotol. 2022 Sep 8. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003681. Online ahead of print.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze our institutional experience with two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary academic otology-neurotology practice.
PATIENTS: Patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses meeting criteria to receive active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.
INTERVENTIONS: Implantation with one of two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, dural exposure and decompression, use of lifts, implant position, ease of use, qualitative patient satisfaction, complication rates.
RESULTS: Ten patients received Implant 1 and 11 patients received Implant 2. The most common underlying etiologies of hearing loss were chronic suppurative otitis media in 33.3%, atresia/microtia in 23.8%, and cholesteatoma in 23.8%. Average operative times were 99.3 minutes for Implant 1 and 80.9 minutes for Implant 2 (p = 0.263). Implant 1 required lifts in 60%, dural exposure in 50%, and dural compression in 30%. Overall, placement was difficult in 47.6% of cases. There were no intraoperative complications. There were higher rates of issues with sound quality (27.3% versus 0.0%, p = 0.123) and poor cosmesis (36.4% versus 10.0%, p = 0.360) with Implant 2. Functional gain was not recorded, but all patients derived qualitative benefit from their implant. Three patients had local wound complications that self-resolved or were treated with antibiotics. One patient implanted at an outside institution required explant because of multiple infections.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes comparing Implants 1 and 2; however, Implant 2 had much higher rates of issues with audio quality and poor cosmesis. Placing Implant 1 often required special techniques.