Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 19(04): 343-348
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564329
Systematic Review
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Active Bone Conduction Prosthesis: BonebridgeTM

Mario E. Zernotti
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Catholic University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
,
Andrea Bravo Sarasty
2   Clinical support Med-El Latin America, Buenos Aires, Argentina
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

24 July 2015

27 July 2015

Publication Date:
05 October 2015 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Bone conduction implants are indicated for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss, as well as for patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). The transcutaneous technology avoids several complications of the percutaneous bone conduction implants including skin reaction, skin growth over the abutment, and wound infection. The Bonebridge (MED-EL, Austria) prosthesis is a semi-implantable hearing system: the BCI (Bone Conduction Implant) is the implantable part that contains the Bone Conduction-Floating Mass Transducer (BC-FMT), which applies the vibrations directly to the bone; the external component is the audio processor Amadé BB (MED-EL, Austria), which digitally processes the sound and sends the information through the coil to the internal part. Bonebridge may be implanted through three different approaches: the transmastoid, the retrosigmoid, or the middle fossa approach.

Objective This systematic review aims to describe the world́s first active bone conduction implant system, Bonebridge, as well as describe the surgical techniques in the three possible approaches, showing results from implant centers in the world in terms of functional gain, speech reception thresholds and word recognition scores.

Data Synthesis The authors searched the MEDLINE database using the key term Bonebridge. They selected only five publications to include in this systematic review. The review analyzes 20 patients that received Bonebridge implants with different approaches and pathologies.

Conclusion Bonebridge is a solution for patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss and SSD with different surgical approaches, depending on their anatomy. The system imparts fewer complications than percutaneous bone conduction implants and shows proven benefits in speech discrimination and functional gain.

Keywords

bone conduction hearing - conductive hearing loss - mixed hearing loss - single sided deafness - bonebridge - bone conduction implants
 

  • References

  • 1 Güldner C, Heinrichs J, Weiß R , et al. Visualisation of the Bonebridge by means of CT and CBCT. Eur J Med Res 2013; 18 (1) 30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sprinzl G, Lenarz T, Ernst A , et al. First European multicenter results with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant system: short-term safety and efficacy. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (6) 1076-1083
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Barbara M, Perotti M, Gioia B, Volpini L, Monini S. Transcutaneous bone-conduction hearing device: audiological and surgical aspects in a first series of patients with mixed hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol 2013; 133 (10) 1058-1064
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lassaletta L, Sanchez-Cuadrado I, Munoz E, Gavilan J. Retrosigmoid implantation of an active bone conduction stimulator in a patient with chronic otitis media. Auris Nasus Larynx 2014; 41 (1) 84-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Canis M, Ihler F, Blum J, Matthias C. CT-assisted navigation for retrosigmoidal implantation of the Bonebridge. HNO 2013; 61 (12) 1038-1044
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tsang WS, Yu JK, Bhatia KS, Wong TK, Tong MC. The Bonebridge semi-implantable bone conduction hearing device: experience in an Asian patient. J Laryngol Otol 2013; 127 (12) 1214-1221
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Clarós P, Diouf MS, Clarós A. Setting up a “Bonebridge”. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2012; 133 (4-5) 217-220 French
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Hassepass F, Bulla S, Aschendorff A , et al. The bonebridge as a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing system: preliminary surgical and audiological results in children and adolescents. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (9) 2235-2241
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Siegert R. Combined reconstruction of congenital auricular atresia and severe microtia. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 68: 95-107
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Digoy GP, Cueva RA. Congenital aural atresia: review of short- and long-term surgical results. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28 (1) 54-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yellon RF. Combined atresiaplasty and tragal reconstruction for microtia and congenital aural atresia: thesis for the American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (2) 245-254
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ricci G, Della Volpe A, Faralli M , et al. Results and complications of the Baha system (bone-anchored hearing aid). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 267 (10) 1539-1545
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hobson JC, Roper AJ, Andrew R, Rothera MP, Hill P, Green KM. Complications of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2010; 124 (2) 132-136
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Badran K, Arya AK, Bunstone D, Mackinnon N. Long-term complications of bone-anchored hearing aids: a 14-year experience. J Laryngol Otol 2009; 123 (2) 170-176
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar