Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 16(03): 400-405
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-97772012000300017
Review Article
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA): indications, functional results, and comparison with reconstructive surgery of the ear

Ricardo Ferreira Bento
1   Professor in Charge of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical School of the University of São Paulo. Chief of the Department of Ophthalmology and Otorhinolaryngology at the Medical School of the University of São Paulo.
,
Alessandra Kiesewetter
2   Medical Specialist in Otorhinolaryngology, Fellow in Ear Surgery and Base of Skull at the Medical School of the University of São Paulo. Medical Specialist in Otorhinolaryngology, Fellow in Ear Surgery and Base of Skull at the Medical School of the University of São Paulo.
,
Liliane Satomi Ikari
3   Medical Specialist in Otorhinolaryngology, Fellow in Ear Surgery and Base of Skull at the Medical School of the University of São Paulo. Medical Specialist in Otorhinolaryngology, Fellow in Ear Surgery and Base of Skull at the Medical School of the University of São Paulo.
,
Rubens Brito
4   Associate Professor of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical School of the University of São Paulo. Associate Professor of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical School of the University of São Paulo.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

22 January 2012

18 March 2012

Publication Date:
05 December 2013 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Introduction: The bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) is a bone conduction hearing device that transmits sound directly into the inner ear. It is mainly used in patients with conductive hearing loss associated with aural atresia, but it is also used in those with mixed and sensorineural hearing loss.

Goals: To review the main indications for BAHA, to analyze the audiometric results and its benefits for patients and compare them with other treatment modalities, and to compare the literature data with our sample of 13 patients.

Method: The research was performed using a database covering works in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, with no limitations in the years when the procedures were performed. We compared the literature data with our results for the 13 patients who underwent BAHA implantation between the years 2000 and 2009.

Results: Most of the studies showed that BAHA has great advantages over reconstructive surgery in terms of hearing results, complications, and disease recurrence. The postoperative results for our 13 patients were satisfactory and comparable with the results from the literature, with closure of the air-bone gap in 7 patients and achieving an air-bone gap of 10 dB in 6 patients. No postoperative complications were observed.

Conclusion: BAHA is a better treatment option than reconstructive surgery for patients with bilateral deafness. It is a relatively simple surgical procedure with few complications and good hearing results. Recent studies have examined its use in conductive and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

Keywords

ear - middle - hearing - hearing loss - conductive
 

  • References

  • 1 Lusting LR , et al. Hearing Rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid: results in 40 patients. Otology & Neurotology 2001; 22: 328-334
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ricci G, Volpe AD, Faralli M, Longari F, Gulla M, Mansi N, Frenguelli A. Results and complications of Baha system (bone-anchored hearing aid). Eus Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 267: 1539-1545
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Granstrom G, Bergstrom K, Odersjo M, Tjellstrom A. Osseointegrated implants in children: experience from our first 100 patients. Otorhinolaryngology Head and neck Surgery 2001; Jul; 125 (1) 85-92
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Verhagen CMV, Hol MKS, Coppens-Schellekens W, Snik AFM, Cremers CWRJ. The BAHA softband a new treatment for Young children with bilateral congenital aural atresia. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2008; 72: 1455-1459
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hol MKS, Cremers CWRJ, Coppens-Schellekens W, Snick AFM. The BAHA softband a new treatment for Young children with bilateral congenital aural atresia. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2005; 69: 973-980
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Davids T, Gordon KA, Clutton D, Papsin BC. Bone-anchored hearing aids in infants and children younger than 5 years. Arch Otolaryngol head neck surg 2007; 133: 51-55
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mazita A, Wan Fazlina WH, Abdullah A, Goh BS, Saim L. Hearing rehabilitation in congenital canal atresia. Singapore Med J 2009; 50 (11) 1072-1076
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Rotenberg BW, James AJ, Fisher D, Anderson J, Papsin BC. Establishment of a bone-anchored auricular prosthesis (BAAP) program. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2002; 66: 273-279
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ali S, Hadoura L, Carmichael A, Geddes NK. Bone anchored hearing AID a single-stage procedure in children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2009; 73: 1076-1079
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fuchsmann C , et al. Hearing rehabilitation in congenital aural atresia using the bone-anchored hearing aid: audiological and satisfaction results. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 2010; Early online, 1–9
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Carlsson P, Hakansson B. The bone anchored aid. Reference quantities and functional gain. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 34-41
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 McDermott AL, Willians J, Kuo M, Reid A, Proops D. The Birmingham pediatric bone-anchored hearing aid program: a 15-year experience. Otology & Neurotology 2009; 30: 178-183
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kunst SJW, Hol MKS, Mylanus EAM, Leijendeckers JM, Snik AFM, Cremers CWRJ. Subjective benefit after BAHA system application in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing impairment. Otology & Neurotology 2008; 29: 353-358
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kunst SJW, Leijendeckers JM, Mylanus EAM, Hol MKS, Snick AFM, Cremers CWRJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid system application for unilateral congenital conductive hearing impairment: audiometric results. Otology & Neurotology 2008; 29: 2-7
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Evans AK, Kazahaya K. Canal atresia: “surgery or implantable hearing devices? The expert's question is revisited”. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2007; 71: 367-374
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Granstrom G, Bergstrom K, Tjellstrom A. The bone-anchored hearing aid and bone-anchored epithesis for congenital ear malformations. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 1993; 109 (1) 46-53
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Chang SO, Choi BY, Hur DG. Analysis of the long-term hearing results after the surgical repair of aural atresia. The Laryngoscope 2006; 116: 1835-1841
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Somers T, Cubber JD, Govaerts P, Offeciers FE. Total auricular repair: bone anchored prosthesis or plastic reconstruction?. Acta oto-rhino-laryngologica belg 1998; 52: 317-327
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Saliba I, Woods O, Caron C. BAHA results in children a tone year follow- up: a prospective longitudinal study. International Journal of Pediatric otorhinolaryngology 2010; 74: 1058-1062
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Christensen L, Ritcher GT, Dornhoffer JL. Update on bone-anchored hearing aids in pediatric patients with profound unilateral sensorioneural hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 136 (2) 175-177
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wazen JJ, Ess MJV, Alameda J, Ortega C, Modisset M, Pinsky K. The BAHA system in patients with single-sided deafness and contralateral hearing loss. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 2010; 142: 554-559
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Hol MKS, Kunst SJW, Snik AFM, Bosman AJ, Mylanus EAM, Cremers CWRJ. Bone anchored hearing aids in patients with acquired and congenital unilateral inner ear deafness (Baha CROS): clinical evaluation of 56 casos. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 2010; 119 (7) 447-454
    Google Scholar