Objective: Evaluate our initial experience with two active transcutaneous bone anchored implant (BAI) systems.
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary otology-neurotology practice.
Patients: Those with conductive hearing loss meeting criteria to undergo BAI.
Interventions: Implantation with Med El Bonebridge BCI602 and Cochlear™ OSIA® among other indicated procedures.
Main Outcome Measures: ease of procedure, procedure time, patient satisfaction.
Results: Five Bonebridges and ten OSIA® were implanted 2020-2021. Average patient age was 34.8 years, BCPTA 18.0dB, ABG 47.3dB. Etiology of hearing loss was microtia/atresia (n=6), radical mastoidectomy (n=4), tympanosclerosis, ossicular discontinuity, and inability to wear conventional hearing aids in the remainder. Operative times were similar between the implants (Bonebridge mean 78.0 mins, OSIA® 80.8 mins). Difficult implantation was encountered in one case with Bonebridge compared to 5/10 OSIA® due to circumferential clearance and skull shape. One Bonebridge patient had a prominent device profile postoperatively, while 5/10 OSIA® patients had significant edema, inflammation, and issues with the magnet. While all patients were pleased with the audio quality and derived benefit with a mean follow-up of 2.4 months, two OSIA® patients reported static noise with usage. Two OSIA® were explanted due to infection; one was performed one year prior and referred by an outside provider; the other occurred 4 months later with wound breakdown. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the outcomes measured.
Conclusions: Active transcutaneous implants are effective in indicated cases with similar operative times. Additional data are needed to compare postoperative infections and device prominence.
*Professional Practice Gap & Educational Need: Educate otolaryngologists and otologists/neurotologists on newer bone anchored implants.
*Learning Objective: To describe the various important factors that go into decision making when choosing between these two implants, describe the learning curve associated, and to use the above information to inform one’s own practice.
*Desired Result: Attendees will be able to report on the differences between the two manufacturers for ease of implant placement and soft tissue effects in each group.