Bone bridge hearing device is a subcutaneous implanted bone anchored hearing device. What about its advantages rather than it is subcutaneous device? Are there any disadvantages? What are otologists & patients feedback? What is the difference between this bone bridge hearing device & trans-cutaneous magnetic BAHA regarding the efficacy & quality of hearing?
Hazem, I did an analysis for a cochlear implant firm back in the 1990s on the efficacy and complications of the original soundbridge. The efficacy appeared to be good at the time, but of course the technology was not cost effective and the quality of life issues lacking due to technological limitations. However, it seemed the one hurdle that could not be overcome, and I don't know if it has been overcome in the latest round of such procedures, is the tissue generation/degeneration that makes the soundbridge separate from the ossicular chain. This would particularly be a cause of concern with cases of presbyacusis, which would feature otosclerosis in all its forms. Has this issue been addressed to your knowledge?
Thanks much Max for your valuable comment regarding soundbridge. Bonebridge hearing device is another new technology which bypasses the ossicular chain & middle ear cavity. It indirectly stimulates the cochlea via vibrating the temporal bone to which it is connected by a titanium pin (inserted in temboral bone). I hope others share us by their feedback regarding the bonebridge hearing device.
I see, OK, this is a conventional BAHA utilizing transmission via temporal bone. Yes, the soundbridge was a wiley situation, too unstable to really market. The standard BAHA is much better and more cost/effective, as well.
Bonebridge hearing device is a modified BAHA which is totally subcutaneously inserted but BAHA is an external vibrator connected via a permanent skin wound to a titanium pin which is fixed inside the temporal bone.
Is this direct transmission, RF transmission, or vibrotactile percutaneous transmission, Hazem?
Bonebridge hearing device (MEDEL Company) has the same function of the conventional BAHA (COCHLEA Company) but the vibrator of bonebridge is inserted intoto with 2 titanium screw pins into the temporal bone & there is no permanent wound as in case of BAHA. Max, please you would write in google bonebrdge hearing device to find the photo of this device. Its microphone is external & captured sound is transmitted to subcutaneous receiver by the same way of CI (micro-magnetic waves) & finally the vibrator works to vibrate the temporal bone stimulating the cochlea.
Excellent approach, Hazem. I've not stayed abreast of the latest in BAHA confirguration. Sounds like the technology is progressing all the time. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Thanks MAX. I hope others share us to pass their experience regarding the topic of my question to enrich our discussion.
Hello Hazeem,
Yours, a bit an old question is still quite alive since the question when exactly and which implant consider in various types of hearing loss was brought at the latest CI conference held in Antwerp.
A broad and live discussion was held there regarding getting a scientific conclusion.
Professionaly, I am an otorhinolaryngologist implanted with a bilateral Bonebridge and I can compare it as a revolutionary device having in mind the old fashioned bone-conduction system on a headband. One patient of mine who tried analog and digital BAHA (by Cochlear) said that BB is far more superior especially with Samba processors.
Actually, BB has evolve as a gigantic FMT of Soundbridge like in a movie Darling I enlarged kids. So it is more obviozs to compare these devices other than BAHA and BB.
What people do not cost into costs is the number of aditional check-ups because of infected skin with BAHA - BB has it - none. Of course, biofilm is always option but recent metadata analysis told us that, in proportion, BB has the lowest complications score.
Regarding your last question, a difference between the Attract and the Bonebridge is that the first one is passive and second is an active implant so it gives much more power - up to 70dB in a difference where people can not gain more power for more severe hearing losses otherwise than 50dB which is a significant difference for someone who needs such device.
A recent study of Frenzel and his team has shown that bilateral BB might preserve the use of binaural cues and Vibrant does not - interesting finding, isn’t it?
Thanks so much Dr. Ivana for your valuable comment & detailed professional & personal experience. In fact I am interested in subcutaneous bone bridge hearing device which I was thinking of it 7 years ago after attending an otological conference in my previous work in King Saud University, I surprised that it is still a weak point related to BAHA its permanent wound with its uncommon infection. So, I thought a solution by a simple idea leading to implanting completely BAHA vibrator portion subcutaneously & to receive the sound electrical stimulus from external separated portion resembling that of CI. I sent my idea in detail including how to prepare the new device & how to implant? to my colleague who organizing the previous conference in a message sent to his e-mail but without positive feedback to proceed performing my idea in the otological research center of KSU. After 2 years, I found my idea is performed by Me-Del company with slight modification.
Hello Hazeem,
I didn’t understand you properly - you meant at children older than 7 years old?
Hi Ivana, I edited my previous comment. I hope you reread. Thanks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Epidemiology