Search

Introduction: Bone conduction implants have been indicated for patients with conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, and even profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. With the introduction of Bonebridge®, new transcutaneous implant options emerged. The latest is Osia®, a direct-drive variant or active systems, where the implant directly generates and applies vibration to the bone. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of two cohorts of patients treated with active bone conduction implants at a single center, one with the Bonebridge® device and the other with Osia®. Outcomes: Fourteen patients were included, seven in each group (n = 14). The Bonebridge® group showed an average hearing gain in tonal intelligibility thresholds of 32.43 ± 21.39 dB and a gain in the average intelligibility threshold (with 50% discrimination) of 26.29 ± 19.10 dB. In the Osia® group, there was a gain in average tonal thresholds of 41.49 ± 14.16 dB and 23.72 ± 6.98 dB in average intelligibility thresholds. Both devices contributed to improvements in patients' quality of life, as assessed with APHAB in all the variables studied in the test. Both devices offer rehabilitation for hearing loss as an alternative to hearing aids. The Osia® system shows statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvements in mid and high frequencies, but Bonebridge® slightly outperforms in speech understanding at 50%. Differences in average tonal thresholds and quality of life are not statistically significant. Conclusions: While auditory improvement is observed postimplantation, other aspects, such as intelligibility thresholds and quality of life, lack statistical significance. Given the limited experience with Osia® and the small sample size, the choice of the device should be personalized. Although the literature is inconsistent due to small sample sizes and variable approaches, some studies suggest potential advantages of the Osia® system, especially in speech comprehension in different environments and greater hearing gain compared to Bonebridge®. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusion: Patients with cochlear implants should be treated no differently than non-implanted patients with similar symptomatology. Objectives: To describe the spectrum of symptomatology, treatment, and long-term follow-up of patients with cochlear implant and vestibular complaints. Methods: This retrospective study included 25 patients with late onset vestibular complaints (more than 1 month post-implantation). Each patient underwent an extensive interrogatory and physical exam with ancillary test to complete a diagnosis. Treatment was given according to this and all patients followed a vestibular rehabilitation program. Results: The total population was 72% male and 28% female, median age was 58 years; minimal follow-up was 9 months (mean = 51, median = 34). Cochleostomy was performed in eight cases and round window insertion was performed in 19 (two patients were removed from each group in the analysis due to their bilateral implantation under a different approach). The mean time from implant to vestibular symptoms was 53 months, median = 32; a Kaplan Meier graphic showed the round window approach has faster onset of symptoms with statistical significance (p = 0.020). The most common complaint was instability in all patients and after both surgical approaches. No difference in symptoms was found with a Kruskall Wallis test except for vertigo spells (more common in the round window approach). In 12 patients the symptomatology was attributed to the implanted side. In the long-term follow-up a relatively high number of patients (20/25) recovered with standard treatment, suggesting the presence of the implant is not associated with poor recovery prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Bone conduction implants have been indicated for patients with conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, and even profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. With the introduction of Bonebridge®, new transcutaneous implant options emerged. The latest is Osia®, a direct-drive variant or active systems, where the implant directly generates and applies vibration to the bone. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of two cohorts of patients treated with active bone conduction implants at a single center, one with the Bonebridge® device and the other with Osia®. Outcomes: Fourteen patients were included, seven in each group (n = 14). The Bonebridge® group showed an average hearing gain in tonal intelligibility thresholds of 32.43 ± 21.39 dB and a gain in the average intelligibility threshold (with 50% discrimination) of 26.29 ± 19.10 dB. In the Osia® group, there was a gain in average tonal thresholds of 41.49 ± 14.16 dB and 23.72 ± 6.98 dB in average intelligibility thresholds. Both devices contributed to improvements in patients' quality of life, as assessed with APHAB in all the variables studied in the test. Both devices offer rehabilitation for hearing loss as an alternative to hearing aids. The Osia® system shows statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvements in mid and high frequencies, but Bonebridge® slightly outperforms in speech understanding at 50%. Differences in average tonal thresholds and quality of life are not statistically significant. Conclusions: While auditory improvement is observed postimplantation, other aspects, such as intelligibility thresholds and quality of life, lack statistical significance. Given the limited experience with Osia® and the small sample size, the choice of the device should be personalized. Although the literature is inconsistent due to small sample sizes and variable approaches, some studies suggest potential advantages of the Osia® system, especially in speech comprehension in different environments and greater hearing gain compared to Bonebridge®. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Active middle ear implants are classified as piezoelectric implants, which use the properties of piezoelectric materials. There are two types of piezoelectric implants: monomorphic and dimorphic; electromagnetic transduction uses a magnet, usually a rare earth magnet (e.g. samarium cobalt) and an energizing coil. This magnetic field causes the magnet to vibrate, which in turn, through the tympanic-ossicular chain, causes movement of the cochlear fluids. Electromechanical transduction is a variation of electromagnetic transduction.