Introduction 21 1 Currently under development • Sentio System Oticon Medical, Askim, Sweden Implant Sentio Ti Surgical consideration Bone bed required MRI compatible: 1.5 Tesla Processor Sentio 1 External Transducer (passive system) • Baha® Attract Cochlear Bone-Anchored Solutions AB, Mölnlycke, [80] Implant BIM400 magnet fixed to BI300 osseointegrated screw Surgical consideration O verlying soft tissue >6mm, no contact of magnet to bone MRI compatible: 1.5 Tesla (11 cm shadow) Processor B aha® 5 (45 dB HL), Baha® 5 Power (55 dB HL), and the Baha® 5 SuperPower (65 dB HL). Baha® 6 (55 dB HL) • Sophono/Alpha 2 MPO ePlus™ Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA [81] Implant Two internal magnets with five screws fixation Surgical Consideration Shallow bony bed MRI compatible: 3 Tesla (5cm shadow) Processor Alpha 2 MPO ePlus™ (45 dB HL) Audiological Comparisons of BCHD Selection of processor and mounting options is specific to each patient’s audiological, and rehabilitation needs and with the increasing options brought to market it can be challenging to make conclusions on which is ultimately the best choice for the patient. To overcome these challenges, significant audiological research has been published comparing these products. However, comparison between these studies has its own limitations due to the vast variability in mounting and processor options being studied. In fact, patient preference is often the main factor in decision making. The fundamental principles of a BCHD hierarchy remain unchanged: The best audiological outcomes are gained through direct contact of a vibrating processor with the skull and, the fitting range is determined by the maximum output. Percutaneous and active transcutaneous BCHDs therefore have significant audiological benefit over softband mounting, ADHEAR and passive devices as they do not need to overcome the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw