This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Neurology  • Neuro-otology  • Hearing Loss/ Deafness  • Alert me on articles by topic

Ad F. M. Snik, PhD; Wouter A. Dreschler, PhD; Rinze A. Tange, MD, PhD; Cor W. R. J. Cremers, MD, PhD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:265-268.

Objectives  To compare the percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA; type NBC-HC-200, Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) and the transcutaneous temporal bone stimulator (TBS; Xomed-Treace, Jacksonville, Fla) with conventional hearing aids and to evaluate long-term results.

Design  In a prospective clinical study, the new implantable bone-conduction devices were compared with the patients' previous conventional hearing aids. Speech perception in quiet and in noise were studied, and a questionnaire concerning the actual use of the device and speech recognition was administered. During follow-up that exceeded 4 years, relevant technical and medical problems were documented.

Patients  Forty-one successive subjects who were fitted with a BAHA and 17 subjects who were fitted with a TBS.

Results  In most subjects who had previously used a bone-conduction device, the new BAHA and TBS devices led to improved or comparable results on speech recognition tests and the questionnaire. However, among the subjects who had previously used air-conduction hearing aids, the results were ambiguous. In the long-term, the percentage of nonusers in the BAHA group was 5% (2/39); in the TBS group, 65% (13/20). The main reasons for not using the TBS were insufficient gain and medical and technical problems. The vulnerability of the percutaneous coupling of the BAHA to trauma or inflammation was not a major issue; only 4 implants were lost during the total follow-up of more than 250 years.

Conclusion  Results indicate that the BAHA is the better choice.

From the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology, Nijmegen University Hospital, Nijmegen (Drs Snik and Cremers), and Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (Drs Dreschler and Tange), the Netherlands.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Electronic aids to hearing
Gatehouse
Br Med Bull 2002;63:147-156.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT