Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

One-step bioprocess for high-purity 1-kestose: removal of sucrose and glucose by immobilized recombinant Komagataellaphaffii.

Analytical biochemistry·2026
Same author

Accumulated Consequences: Severe Intestinal Failure in Familial Mediterranean Fever.

Gastroenterology·2026
Same author

A Comparative Utility Study of Computed Tomography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Preoperative Assessment of Adult Cochlear Implant Candidates.

Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology·2026
Same author

Variances in 3D radiomic shape features between meningioma, acoustic neuroma, and pituitary adenoma and the impact on dosimetric plan quality in Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery.

Biomedical physics & engineering express·2026
Same author

Is the Vermiform Appendix A "Safe House?": A Preliminary Examination of the Appendix Microbiome.

Shock (Augusta, Ga.)·2026
Same author

Ossiculoplasty in the Setting of Erosive Middle Ear Disease.

Otolaryngologic clinics of North America·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 29, 2025

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access
08:06

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Published on: June 16, 2022

3.3K

Initial Experience With Two Active Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants.

Zachary G Schwam1, Enrique R Perez, Samuel Oh

  • 1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.

Otology & Neurotology : Official Publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [And] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
|September 8, 2022
PubMed
Summary

This study compared two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids, finding no significant outcome differences. However, one device had higher rates of audio quality and cosmetic issues.

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery
06:54

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

1.3K
Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation
09:10

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Published on: March 8, 2022

4.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 29, 2025

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access
08:06

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Published on: June 16, 2022

3.3K
Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery
06:54

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

1.3K
Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation
09:10

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Published on: March 8, 2022

4.5K

Area of Science:

  • Otolaryngology
  • Neurosurgery
  • Biomedical Engineering

Background:

  • Conductive or mixed hearing loss can significantly impact quality of life.
  • Bone-anchored hearing aids offer a solution for hearing rehabilitation.
  • Active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids provide an alternative to traditional percutaneous devices.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the institutional experience with two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.
  • To compare operative outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complication rates between the two devices.

Main Methods:

  • A retrospective cohort study was conducted.
  • Patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss received one of two active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids.
  • Outcomes assessed included operative time, dural exposure, implant position, ease of use, patient satisfaction, and complications.

Main Results:

  • Ten patients received Implant 1 and 11 received Implant 2.
  • Common etiologies included chronic suppurative otitis media, atresia/microtia, and cholesteatoma.
  • While operative times and intraoperative complications were similar, Implant 2 showed higher rates of sound quality issues (27.3%) and poor cosmesis (36.4%).
  • Implant 1 placement was often difficult and required special techniques, including lifts (60%), dural exposure (50%), and dural compression (30%).
  • No statistically significant differences in overall outcomes were found, but qualitative benefit was reported by all patients.

Conclusions:

  • Both active transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids provided qualitative benefit to patients.
  • Implant 2 was associated with higher rates of audio quality and cosmetic concerns.
  • Surgical placement of Implant 1 frequently necessitated specialized techniques.