Audiological and clinical outcomes of a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: Six-month results from a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the hearing performance of patients with conductive and mild mixed hearing loss and single-sided sensorineural deafness provided with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant (the Baha Attract System) with unaided hearing as well as aided with a sound processor on a softband. Furthermore, to evaluate safety and subjective benefit before and after implantation of the test device.

PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four adult patients in five participating centres were enrolled in this prospective study. Baseline data were collected during a pre-operative visit, and after a softband trial, all patients were implanted unilaterally. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 10 days, 4, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Free-field hearing thresholds pure-tone average (PTA4 in dB HL; mean threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 Hz; primary outcome measure). Individual free-field hearing thresholds, speech recognition in quiet and in noise, soft tissue status during follow-up and subjective benefit as measured with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and Health Utilities Index (HUI) questionnaires.

RESULTS: Implantation of the Baha Attract System resulted in favourable audiological outcomes compared to unaided conditions. On the primary outcome parameter, a statistically significant improvement was observed compared to unaided hearing for the patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss (mean PTA4 difference -20.8 dB HL, SD 9.8; P < 0.0001) and for the patients with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD) (mean PTA4 difference -21.6 dB HL, SD 12.2; P < 0.0001). During all audiology tests, the non-test ear was blocked. Statistically significant improvements were also recorded in speech tests in quiet and noise compared to unaided hearing for the conductive/mixed hearing loss group and for speech in quiet in the SSD group. Compared to the pre-operative measurement with softband, no significant differences were recorded in the PTA4 free-field hearing threshold or the other audiological outcomes in either of the groups (P > 0.05). Soft tissue-related issues observed during follow-up included numbness, pain/discomfort at the implant site and to a lesser extent pressure-related skin complications. A declining trend was noted in the rate of these complications during follow-up. Approximately 20% of patients reported some degree of numbness and 38% (slight) pain/discomfort at final follow-up of 6 months. Good results on the subjective benefit questionnaires were observed, with statistically significant improvements on APHAB and SSQ questionnaires, and on the hearing attribute of HUI3.

CONCLUSIONS: The Baha Attract System provided a significant improvement in hearing performance and subjective benefit compared to the pre-operative unaided condition (with the non-test ear blocked). Hearing performance of the Baha Attract was similar to a test situation with the same sound processor on a softband. A proportion of the patients reported numbness and pain/discomfort at the implant site during follow-up, especially during the first post-operative weeks. Based on the results of the current multicentre study, the Baha Attract can be considered as a treatment option for patients with the aforementioned hearing losses. Especially in the SSD patients, a careful selection procedure is warranted. Therefore, a pre-operative trial should be part of the decision-making process before fitting a patient with the Baha Attract System.