A Case of Intralabyrinthine Schwannoma Removal and Sequential BonebridgeTM Implantation

Intralabyrinthine schwannoma (ILS) is a rare benign tumor that arises within the membranous labyrinthine. Since hearing loss is inevitable after tumor removal in most cases, an appropriate rehabilitation method should be considered. A 41-year-old male, who was diagnosed with ILS underwent tumor removal via translabyrinthine approach, has subsequently experienced right-side deafness as a result. Seventeen months after the tumor removal, a surgery for hearing rehabilitation was performed. Since cochlear implantation was not doable due to cochlear ossification, an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (BonebridgeTM , MEDEL) was placed at the sinodural angle. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report describing hearing rehabilitation with BonebridgeTM implantation after ILS removal.

The Bonebridge BCI 602 Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant in Children: Objective and Subjective Benefits

Background: the Bonebridge hearing implant is an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant suitable for various types of hearing loss. It was first launched in 2012 as the BCI 601, with a newer internal part (BCI 602) released in 2019. With the new size and shape, the BCI 602 can be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient anatomical conditions, especially in patients with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear. Objectives: the purpose of this study is to evaluate the objective and subjective benefits of the new Bonebridge BCI 602 in children who have hearing impairment due to conductive or mixed hearing loss. Safety and effectiveness of the device was assessed. Methods: the study group included 22 children aged 8–18 years (mean age 14.7 years) who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients were implanted unilaterally with the new Bonebridge BCI 602 implant. Pure tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed before and after implantation. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Demenko and Pruszewicz Polish Monosyllabic Word Test, and speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. The subjective assessment of benefits was carried outusing the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Results: after implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 all patients showed a statistically significant improvement in hearing and speech understanding. The mean word recognition score (WRS) changed from 12.1% before implantation to 87.3% after 6 months. Mean speech reception threshold (SRT) before implantation was +4.79 dB SNR and improved to −1.29 dB SNR after 6 months. All patients showed stable postoperative results. The APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after implantation, with a statistically significant improvement in global score. Pre-operative scores (M = 35.7) were significantly worse than post-operative scores at 6 months (M = 25.7). Conclusions: the present study confirms that the Bonebridge BCI 602 is an innovative and effective solution, especially for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss due to anatomical ear defects. The Bonebridge BCI 602 system provides valuable and stable audiological and surgical benefits. Subjective assessment also confirms the effectiveness of the BCI 602. The BCI 602 offers the same amplification as the BCI601, but with a smaller size. The smaller dimensions make it an effective treatment option for a wider group of patients, especially children with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear.

Speech perception and hearing effort using a new active middle ear implant audio processor

Purpose The Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) was introduced in 1996, and the fourth generation of the audio processor recently released. This clinical study evaluates the audiological performance and subjective satisfaction of the new SAMBA 2 audio processor compared to its predecessor, SAMBA. Method Fifteen VSB users tested both audio processors for approximately 3 weeks. Air conduction and bone conduction thresholds and unaided and aided sound field thresholds were measured with both devices. Speech performance in quiet (Freiburg monosyllables) and noise (OLSA) was evaluated as well as subjective listening effort (ACALES) and questionnaire outcomes (SSQ12 and APSQ). In addition, data from 16 subjects with normal hearing were gathered on sound field tests and ACALES. Results Both audio processors showed substantial improvement compared to the unaided condition. The SAMBA and SAMBA 2 had comparable performance in sound filed thresholds, while the SAMBA 2 was significantly better in speech in quiet, speech in noise, reduced listening effort, and improved subjective satisfaction compared with the SAMBA. Conclusion The SAMBA 2 audio processor, compared to its predecessor SAMBA, offers improved performance throughout the parameters investigated in this study. Patients with a VSB implant would benefit from an upgrade to SAMBA 2.