AbstractObjectiveTo compare soft-tissue complications following implantation of different bone conduction hearing devices.MethodsAdults who underwent implantation of different bone conduction hearing devices, between January 2008 and December 2016, were included in the study. Five groups were identified depending on the soft-tissue approach: (1) split-thickness skin flap with use of dermatome; (2) Sheffield ‘S’-shaped incision with skin thinning; (3) linear incision without skin thinning (hydroxyapatite-coated abutment); (4) ‘C’-shaped full-thickness incision for passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices; and (5) post-aural incision for active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices. The main outcome measures were different soft-tissue complications.ResultsThe study comprised 120 patients (group 1 = 20 patients, group 2 = 35, group 3 = 35, group 4 = 20, and group 5 = 10). Soft tissue related problems were encountered in 55 per cent of patients from group 1, 26 per cent in group 2, 3 per cent in group 3, and 0 per cent in groups 4 and 5.ConclusionThere was a reduction in soft tissue related complications with reduced soft-tissue handling. In addition, there was a shift from an initial skin-penetrating (percutaneous) approach to a non-skin-penetrating (transcutaneous) approach.
Review of Bone Conduction Hearing Devices