Planning tools and indications for "virtual surgery" for the Bonebridge bone conduction system.
Planungstools und Indikationen zur „virtuellen Chirurgie“ beim Knochenleitungssystem Bonebridge.
Bone conduction
Computed tomography
Hearing aids
Sensory aids
Wearable electronic devices
Journal
HNO
ISSN: 1433-0458
Titre abrégé: HNO
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 2985099R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
accepted:
07
07
2020
pubmed:
3
3
2021
medline:
1
9
2021
entrez:
2
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implantation of the Bonebridge (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria), an active semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction hearing system, involves the risk of impression or a lesion in intracranial structures, such as the dura or sigmoid sinus. Therefore, determining the optimal implant position requires careful preoperative radiological planning. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the possibilities for preoperative radiological planning for the Bonebridge implantation and to evaluate their indications and feasibility. A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE database for all studies with preoperative planning or implant placement as the primary endpoint or that secondarily mention preoperative planning. Of 558 studies, 49 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 18 studies, preoperative planning and floating mass transducer (FMT) placement were the primary endpoints, whereas in 31 studies, preoperative planning was described secondarily. There are both freely available and commercial tools involving different time commitments for preoperative three-dimensional (3D) planning and intraoperative transfer. Preoperative 3D planning can increase the safety of Bonebridge implantation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Implantation of the Bonebridge (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria), an active semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction hearing system, involves the risk of impression or a lesion in intracranial structures, such as the dura or sigmoid sinus. Therefore, determining the optimal implant position requires careful preoperative radiological planning.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the possibilities for preoperative radiological planning for the Bonebridge implantation and to evaluate their indications and feasibility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE database for all studies with preoperative planning or implant placement as the primary endpoint or that secondarily mention preoperative planning.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 558 studies, 49 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 18 studies, preoperative planning and floating mass transducer (FMT) placement were the primary endpoints, whereas in 31 studies, preoperative planning was described secondarily.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There are both freely available and commercial tools involving different time commitments for preoperative three-dimensional (3D) planning and intraoperative transfer. Preoperative 3D planning can increase the safety of Bonebridge implantation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33651113
doi: 10.1007/s00106-020-00976-0
pii: 10.1007/s00106-020-00976-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
39-46Informations de copyright
© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.
Références
Arnold H, Schulze M, Wolpert S et al (2018) Positioning a novel transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: a systematic anatomical and radiological study to standardize the retrosigmoid approach, correlating navigation-guided, and landmark-based surgery. Otol Neurotol 39:458–466
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001734
Brkic FF, Riss D, Scheuba K et al (2019) Medical, technical and audiological outcomes of hearing rehabilitation with the bonebridge transcutaneous bone-conduction implant: a single-center experience. J Clin Med 8:1614. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101614
doi: 10.3390/jcm8101614
pmcid: 6832994
Canis M, Ihler F, Blum J et al (2013) CT-assisted navigation for retrosigmoidal implantation of the Bonebridge. HNO 61:1038–1044
doi: 10.1007/s00106-012-2652-5
Canzi P, Marconi S, Manfrin M et al (2018) From CT scanning to 3D printing technology: a new method for the preoperative planning of a transcutaneous bone-conduction hearing device. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 38:251–256
doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1625
Carnevale C, Tomas-Barberan M, Til-Perez G et al (2019) The Bonebridge active bone conduction system: a fast and safe technique for a middle fossa approach. J Laryngol Otol 133:344–347
doi: 10.1017/S0022215119000501
Cho B, Matsumoto N, Mori M et al (2014) Image-guided placement of the bonebridge without surgical navigation equipment. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9:845–855
doi: 10.1007/s11548-013-0973-9
Gerdes T, Salcher RB, Schwab B et al (2016) Comparison of audiological results between a transcutaneous and a percutaneous bone conduction instrument in conductive hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 37:685–691
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001010
Kong TH, Park YA, Seo YJ (2017) Image-guided implantation of the Bonebridge with a surgical navigation: a feasibility study. Int J Surg Case Rep 30:112–117
doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.11.057
Lassaletta L, Calvino M, Zernotti M et al (2016) Postoperative pain in patients undergoing a transcutaneous active bone conduction implant (Bonebridge). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:4103–4110
doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-3972-y
Law EK, Bhatia KS, Tsang WS et al (2016) CT pre-operative planning of a new semi-implantable bone conduction hearing device. Eur Radiol 26:1686–1695
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3983-x
Matsumoto N, Takumi Y, Cho B et al (2015) Template-guided implantation of the Bonebridge: clinical experience. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:3669–3675
doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3452-1
Mukherjee P, Cheng K, Flanagan S et al (2017) Utility of 3D printed temporal bones in pre-surgical planning for complex BoneBridge cases. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:3021–3028
doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4618-4
Oh SJ, Goh EK, Choi SW et al (2019) Audiologic, surgical and subjective outcomes of active transcutaneous bone conduction implant system (Bonebridge). Int J Audiol 58:956–963
doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1657242
Pai I, Rojas P, Jiang D et al (2017) The use of 3D printed external and internal templates for Bonebridge implantation—technical note. Clin Otolaryngol 42:1118–1120
doi: 10.1111/coa.12599
Plontke SK, Götze G, Wenzel C et al (2020) Implantation eines neuen, aktiven, knochenverankerten elektronischen Hörimplantates mit verkleinerter Geometrie. HNO 68(11):854–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-020-00876-3
doi: 10.1007/s00106-020-00876-3
pubmed: 32504115
Plontke SK, Radetzki F, Seiwerth I et al (2014) Individual computer-assisted 3D planning for surgical placement of a new bone conduction hearing device. Otol Neurotol 35:1251–1257
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000405
Rader T, Stover T, Lenarz T et al (2018) Retrospective analysis of hearing-impaired adult patients treated with an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant. Otol Neurotol 39:874–881
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001834
Rahne T, Schilde S, Seiwerth I et al (2016) Mastoid dimensions in children and young adults: consequences for the geometry of transcutaneous bone-conduction implants. Otol Neurotol 37:57–61
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000881
Reinfeldt S, Hakansson B, Taghavi H et al (2014) Bone conduction hearing sensitivity in normal-hearing subjects: transcutaneous stimulation at BAHA vs BCI position. Int J Audiol 53:360–369
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.880813
Schilde S, Plontke SK, Rahne T (2017) A three-dimensional geometric-morphometric study to quantify temporal bone growth and its consequences for the success of implanting bone anchored hearing devices. Otol Neurotol 38:721–729
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001358
Sprinzl GM, Wolf-Magele A (2016) The Bonebridge Bone Conduction Hearing Implant: indication criteria, surgery and a systematic review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol 41:131–143
doi: 10.1111/coa.12484
Taghavi H, Hakansson B, Reinfeldt S et al (2015) Technical design of a new bone conduction implant (BCI) system. Int J Audiol 54:736–744
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1051665
Takumi Y, Matsumoto N, Cho B et al (2014) A clinical experience of ‘STAMP’ plate-guided bonebridge implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 134:1042–1046
doi: 10.3109/00016489.2014.900703
Thomas JP, Van Ackeren K, Dazert S et al (2018) Transmastoid implantability of an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant in adults with regard to the underlying pathology: a radiological simulation study. Acta Otolaryngol 138:530–536
doi: 10.1080/00016489.2017.1420915
Todt I, Lamecker H, Ramm H et al (2014) Development of a computed tomography data-based Vibrant Bonebridge viewer. HNO 62:439–442
doi: 10.1007/s00106-014-2851-3
Vyskocil E, Riss D, Arnoldner C et al (2017) Dura and sinus compression with a transcutaneous bone conduction device—hearing outcomes and safety in 38 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 42:1033–1038
doi: 10.1111/coa.12793
Weiss BG, Bertlich M, Scheele R et al (2017) Systematic radiographic evaluation of three potential implantation sites for a semi-implantable bone conduction device in 52 patients after previous mastoid surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:3001–3009
doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4609-5
Wenzel C, Schilde S, Plontke SK et al (2020) Changes in bone conduction implant geometry improve the bone fit in mastoids of children and young adults. Otol Neurotol 41(10):1406–1412. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002798
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002798
pubmed: 32740551
Wimmer W, Gerber N, Guignard J et al (2015) Topographic bone thickness maps for Bonebridge implantations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:1651–1658
doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-2976-8
You P, Siegel LH, Kassam Z et al (2019) The middle fossa approach with self-drilling screws: a novel technique for BONEBRIDGE implantation. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 48:35
doi: 10.1186/s40463-019-0354-7