Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:40:03.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

Marcelle Macnamara ,
David Phillips  and
David W. Proops
Marcelle Macnamara
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
David Phillips
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
David W. Proops
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bone anchored hearing aids are gaining wide acceptability in the treatment of patients with congenital ear problems, chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) and in some cases otosclerosis. To date little information on the effect of the bone anchored hearing aid on the symptoms of chronic suppurative otitis is available. This retrospective study based on notes review and telephone interviews was to assess the outcome of bone anchored hearing aid surgery in patients with CSOM in terms of: ear discharge; surgical techniques and complications; the number of hours the aid is worn compared with the previous aid.

One hundred and forty-two patients were fitted with bone anchored hearing aids without additional prostheses in Birmingham between 1989 and 1995. Sixty-nine (48.5 per cent) of these were for chronic suppurative otitis media, 45 of these were female and 24 were male with a mean age of 58 years. Most (85 per cent) had undergone previous ear surgery with 65 per cent having mastoid surgery. Ninety-eight per cent of this patient group had undergone single stage surgery and 65 per cent under local anaesthetic as a day case. A variety of techniques for soft tissue reduction were employed.

The mean follow-up time for these patients was 24 months (range one month to seven years). No patients experienced worse discharge following their BAHA and 84 per cent had significantly reduced discharge, 16 per cent had no change. Complications included skin reactions, 15; failure to integrate, one; late loss of fixture, three. Seventy-three per cent wore their bone anchored hearing aid more than eight hours per day and 58 per cent were more satisfied with their bone anchored hearing aid than their previous aid.

Keywords

Hearing aids, bone anchoredOtitis media, suppurative
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 110 , Supplement 21 , December 1996 , pp. 38 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrektsson, T., Branemark, P. I., Hansson, H. A., Lindstrom, J. (1981) Osseointegrated titanium implants: Requirements for ensuring long-lasting direct bone to implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavia 52: 155–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonding, P., Ahlgren, P., Dige-Petersen, H. (1992) Permanent, skin penetrating, bone anchored titanium implants: A clinical study of host reaction in bone and soft tissue. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockholm) 112: 455–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brånemark, P. I., Breine, U., Adell, R., Hansson, B. O., Lindstrom, J., Ohlsson, A. (1969) Intra-osseus anchorage of dental prosthesis 1. Experimental studies. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 3: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, G. G., Gatehouse, S. S. (1994) Estimation of benefit of bone anchored hearing aids. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 103 (11): 872–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cremers, C. W. J., Snik, A. F. M., Beynon, A. J. (1992) Hearing with the bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA HC200) compared to a conventional bone conduction hearing aid. Clinical Otolaryngology 17: 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakansson, B., Lien, G., Tjellstrom, A., Ringdahl, A., Jacobsson, M., Carlsson, P., Erlandson, B. E. (1990) Ten years experience with the Swedish bone anchored hearing system. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 99 (Suppl. 151): 1–16.Google Scholar
Lindeman, P., Tengstrand, T. (1987) Clinical experience with the bone anchored hearing aid. Scandinavian Audiology 16 (1): 37–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mylanus, E. A. M., Cremers, C. W. R. J. (1994) A one stage surgical procedure for placement of percutaneous implants for the bone anchored hearing aid. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 108: 1031–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mylanus, E. A. M., Snik, A. F. M., Cremers, C. W. R. J. (1995) Patients' opinions of bone anchored versus conventional hearing aids. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 121 (4): 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylanus, E. A. M., Snik, A. F. M., Cremers, C. W. R. J., Jorritsma, F. F., Verschoure, I. H. (1994) Audiological results of the bone anchored hearing aid HC200, multicentre results. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 103: 368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proops, D. W. (1993) Editorial: Bone anchored hearing aids and prostheses. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 107: 99–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proops, D. W. (1996) The Birmingham Bone Anchored Hearing Aid Programme: Surgical methods and complications. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 110 (Suppl 21): 7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snik, A. F. M., Mylanus, E. A. M., Cremers, C. W. R. J. (1994) Speech recognition with the bone anchored hearing aid determined objectively and subjectively. Ear, Nose and Throat Journal 73 (2): 115–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tjëllström, A., Rosenhall, U., Lindstrom, J., Hallen, O., Albrektsson, T., Branemark, P. I. (1983) Five years experience with skin penetrating bone anchored implants in the temporal bone. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockholm) 95: 568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar