Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 22(04): 368-373
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1613685
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

A Comparison of the Operative Techniques and the Postoperative Complications for Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Implantation

Mark W. Steehler
1   Department of Otolaryngology, LECOM Health System, Millcreek Community Hospital, Erie, PA, United States
2   ENT Specialists of Northwestern PA, Erie, PA, United States
,
Sean P. Larner
1   Department of Otolaryngology, LECOM Health System, Millcreek Community Hospital, Erie, PA, United States
2   ENT Specialists of Northwestern PA, Erie, PA, United States
3   University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, Erie, PA, United States
,
Joshua S. Mintz
4   The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, United States
,
Matthew K. Steehler
5   Ear, Nose, and Throat Associates of Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, United States
,
Sidney P. Lipman
2   ENT Specialists of Northwestern PA, Erie, PA, United States
3   University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, Erie, PA, United States
,
Shane Griffith
1   Department of Otolaryngology, LECOM Health System, Millcreek Community Hospital, Erie, PA, United States
2   ENT Specialists of Northwestern PA, Erie, PA, United States
3   University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, Erie, PA, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

08 August 2017

05 November 2017

Publication Date:
18 January 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA) represent a useful surgical option for patients with single sided deafness.

Objectives To compare multiple techniques for BAHA implantation regarding postoperative complications, operative time, and duration between the surgery and the first use of the BAHA.

Methods A retrospective study was conducted of all patients receiving implantation of a BAHA from August of 2008 to October of 2014. Data collected included: patient age, gender, side operated, abutment length, operative time, duration until first use of the BAHA, operative technique, and postoperative complications. The statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey pairwise comparison, chi-square, and paired t-test. Statistical significance was determined using a level of p < 0.05.

Results A total of 88 patients (43 female and 45 male) were included in the data analysis. A total of 80 complications were documented, and these complications were classified according to the Holgers criteria. A significant difference in the total postoperative complications existed between the six techniques used (ANOVA; p < 0.01). In addition, there was also a significant difference among the six techniques employed regarding the operative time (ANOVA; p < 0.01). The average time duration until fitting of the BAHA processor among the various techniques trended toward but did not reach statistical significance (ANOVA; p = 0.16).

Conclusions Significant differences in the operative outcomes exist among the various techniques for BAHA implantation. Based on the statistical analysis of our data, the BAHA Attract system (Cochlear Ltd., Sidney, Australia) requires greater operative time, but it is associated with less postoperative complications than percutaneous techniques and its processor may be fitted significantly sooner.

Keywords

hearing aids - deafness - otologic surgical procedures

Paper Presentation

Accepted for poster presentation at the 2016 Combined Sections Meeting, January 22–24, 2016, Miami Beach, FL.


 

  • References

  • 1 Woolford TJ, Morris DP, Saeed SR, Rothera MP. The implant-site split-skin graft technique for the bone-anchored hearing aid. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999; 24 (03) 177-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mudry A. Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA): skin healing process for skin flap technique versus linear incision technique in the first three months after the implantation. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2009; 130 (4-5): 281-284
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Allis TJ, Owen BD, Chen B, Jones DT, Moore GF. Longer length Baha™ abutments decrease wound complications and revision surgery. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (04) 989-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Asma A, Ubaidah MA, Hasan SS. , et al. Surgical outcome of bone anchored hearing aid (baha) implant surgery: a 10 years experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 65 (03) 251-254
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Wilson DF, Kim HH. A minimally invasive technique for the implantation of bone-anchored hearing devices. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 149 (03) 473-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mylanus EAM, Beynon AJ, Snik AFM, Cremers CWRJ. Percutaneous titanium implantation in the skull for the bone-anchored hearing aid. J Invest Surg 1994; 7 (04) 327-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wilkinson EP, Luxford WM, Slattery III WH, De la Cruz A, House JW, Fayad JN. Single vertical incision for Baha implant surgery: preliminary results. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 140 (04) 573-578
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hol MK, Snik AF, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW. Does the bone-anchored hearing aid have a complementary effect on audiological and subjective outcomes in patients with unilateral conductive hearing loss?. Audiol Neurootol 2005; 10 (03) 159-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Badran K, Bunstone D, Arya AK, Suryanarayanan R, Mackinnon N. Patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a 14-year experience. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27 (05) 659-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kunst SJ, Hol MK, Mylanus EA, Leijendeckers JM, Snik AF, Cremers CW. Subjective benefit after BAHA system application in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing impairment. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29 (03) 353-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gordon SA, Coelho DH. Minimally invasive surgery for osseointegrated auditory implants: A comparison of linear versus punch techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 152 (06) 1089-1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tjellström A, Lindström J, Hallén O, Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI. Osseointegrated titanium implants in the temporal bone. A clinical study on bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol 1981; 2 (04) 304-310
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Holgers KM, Bjursten LM, Thomsen P, Ericson LE, Tjellström A. Experience with percutaneous titanium implants in the head and neck: a clinical and histological study. J Invest Surg 1989; 2 (01) 7-16
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Snyder MC, Moore GF, Johnson PJ. The use of full-thickness skin grafts for the skin-abutment interface around bone-anchored hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (02) 255-258
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lekakis GK, Najuko A, Gluckman PG. Wound related complications following full thickness skin graft versus split thickness skin graft on patients with bone anchored hearing aids. Clin Otolaryngol 2005; 30 (04) 324-327
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Shirazi MA, Marzo SJ, Leonetti JP. Perioperative complications with the bone-anchored hearing aid. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 134 (02) 236-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 House JW, Kutz Jr JW. Bone-anchored hearing aids: incidence and management of postoperative complications. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28 (02) 213-217
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stalfors J, Tjellström A. Skin reactions after BAHA surgery: a comparison between the U-graft technique and the BAHA dermatome. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29 (08) 1109-1114
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Van Rompaey V, Claes G, Verstraeten N. , et al. Skin reactions following BAHA surgery using the skin flap dermatome technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 268 (03) 373-376
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Işeri M, Orhan KS, Kara A. , et al. A new transcutaneous bone anchored hearing device - the Baha® Attract System: the first experience in Turkey. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2014; 24 (02) 59-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Briggs R, Van Hasselt A, Luntz M. , et al. Clinical performance of a new magnetic bone conduction hearing implant system: results from a prospective, multicenter, clinical investigation. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36 (05) 834-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mylanus EAM, Cremers CWRJ. A one-stage surgical procedure for placement of percutaneous implants for the bone-anchored hearing aid. J Laryngol Otol 1994; 108 (12) 1031-1035
    Google Scholar
  • 23 de Wolf MJF, Hol MKS, Huygen PLM, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW. Clinical outcome of the simplified surgical technique for BAHA implantation. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29 (08) 1100-1108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fontaine N, Hemar P, Schultz P, Charpiot A, Debry C. BAHA implant: implantation technique and complications. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2014; 131 (01) 69-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar