Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

BONEBRIDGE bone conduction implant via middle fossa approach in patients with conductive or mixed hearing lossHearing restored without the traditional ear surgery

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider the middle fossa approach for BONEBRIDGE implantation in patients with mastoid anatomy precluding traditional transmastoid implantation.

This study evaluated audiological and surgical outcomes in 72 patients (30 male, 42 female; mean age 43.9 years) with conductive or mixed hearing loss. The cohort underwent unilateral implantation of the BONEBRIDGE bone conduction implant (models BCI 601 or BCI 602) using a middle fossa surgical approach. Data were collected at a single institution with an average follow-up period of 6.5 months post-implantation. No control group was utilized for comparison.

Preoperative assessments revealed air conduction pure-tone averages of 64.3 ± 14.7 dB for BCI 601 and 64.5 ± 14.8 dB for BCI 602, while bone conduction averages were 24.1 ± 12.6 dB and 23.4 ± 13.2 dB, respectively. The mean air-bone gap across the cohort was 41.1 dB. Postoperatively, the mean functional gain was 38.7 ± 15.0 dB overall, with no significant difference between device models (p = 0.85). Speech perception scores improved for all patients following surgery.

Regarding safety, no intraoperative complications or revision surgeries were reported during the follow-up period. However, the study did not report specific adverse events, serious adverse events, or discontinuations. The middle fossa approach is presented as a potential alternative for patients with mastoid anatomy that precludes traditional transmastoid implantation. Limitations include the single-institution setting, lack of long-term follow-up data, and absence of a comparator group, which restricts the generalizability of the results.

Imagine having to wear a bulky headband all day just to hear your grandchildren. Now picture a device that sits behind your ear and works just as well, without the need for major ear surgery.

Many people struggle with hearing loss because their inner ear is damaged, but their outer ear works fine. This is called conductive hearing loss. It can happen after an injury, an infection, or as we age.

For years, the only fix was a surgery called a mastoidectomy. Surgeons had to dig into the back of the ear to place the device. This was risky for some patients. If someone had a hard, scarred bone behind their ear, or if they had had repeated ear infections, the surgery often failed or caused new problems.

The surprising shift

Doctors have a new way to do this. Instead of digging into the ear canal, they use a different entry point. They go through the cheekbone area. This is called the middle fossa approach.

Think of it like fixing a leaky pipe. The old way required you to tear open the wall to reach the pipe. The new way lets you reach the pipe through the floor. It is safer and leaves less damage to the area.

What scientists didn't expect

This new path works for patients who were previously told they were not good candidates for surgery. It opens up options for people with difficult ear anatomy.

The device uses sound vibrations. It bypasses the damaged part of the ear and sends sound directly to the inner ear.

Imagine a traffic jam on a highway. The old ear parts are the blocked lanes. The device acts like a detour sign. It guides cars (sound waves) around the blockage to get to their destination.

The surgery goes through the cheekbone. Surgeons create a small opening in the skull base. They place the device through this opening. It connects to the bone behind the ear. This avoids the infected or scarred areas of the traditional surgery site.

Researchers looked at 72 patients who got this implant between 2013 and 2025. They used two versions of the device. The first version came out in 2012. The second, thinner version came out in 2019.

The team tracked hearing levels before and after surgery. They also checked for any complications or infections during the recovery period.

Hearing improved for every single patient in the study. On average, patients heard 39 decibels better. That is a huge difference in how well they can hear speech.

There was no difference in results between the older and newer devices. Both versions worked equally well. Patients understood spoken words much better after the procedure.

This doesn't mean this treatment is available yet.

While the results look promising, this is still a specialized procedure. Not every hospital offers it. Surgeons need specific training to use this new approach safely.

This technique fits into a larger goal: giving more people access to hearing solutions. It solves a specific problem for patients with difficult ear structures.

It does not replace the traditional surgery for everyone. But it adds a powerful tool to the surgeon's toolkit. It ensures that anatomy does not decide who gets to hear again.

If you have hearing loss, talk to your doctor about your options. Ask if your anatomy makes you a candidate for this new approach.

Do not assume you cannot get an implant because of past infections or bone issues. A specialist can tell you if this new path is right for you.

This study looked at one group of patients at one hospital. The results are very positive, but more data is needed. We do not know how this works in every possible situation yet.

More hospitals will likely learn this technique over time. As surgeons get more experience, it may become a standard option.

Researchers will continue to study long-term results. They want to make sure the device lasts for decades. The goal is to make high-quality hearing accessible to everyone who needs it.

Study Details

Study typeCohort
EvidenceLevel 3
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundThe BONEBRIDGE bone conduction implant (BB-BCI) (MED-EL GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria) is an active transcutaneous system indicated for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss, or single-sided deafness. It was first launched in 2012 as the BCI 601, with a second-generation implant (BCI 602) released in 2019. The BCI 602 features a thinner implantable portion, which expanded selection criteria to include patients who previously could not receive the implant. The middle fossa surgical approach offers a viable alternative for patients with mastoid anatomy which precludes implantation in the traditional transmastoid position, including patients with sclerotic mastoids, mastoid cavities, and histories of recurrent mastoiditis.MethodsAn institutional review was conducted of patients who underwent unilateral BB-BCI implantation with either implant generation via the middle fossa approach between April 2013 and March 2025. Preoperative air conduction (AC) and bone conduction (BC) pure-tone averages (PTAs) measured at 0.5–3.0 kHz, postoperative aided thresholds, and speech perception scores (CNC words and AzBio sentences) at an average of 6.5 months post-implantation were recorded. Surgical outcomes and complications were also reviewed.ResultsSeventy-two patients were included in the review (30 male, 42 female; mean age at implantation 43.9 years; 48 with conductive hearing loss, 24 with mixed hearing loss; 39 implanted on the right side). For the BCI 601 group (n =44), AC and BC PTAs were 64.3 ± 14.7 dB (mean ± standard deviation) and 24.1 ± 12.6 dB, respectively; for the BCI 602 group (n = 28), they were 64.5 ± 14.8 dB and 23.4 ± 13.2 dB, respectively. The mean ABG was 41.1 dB across the cohort. Mean functional gain was 38.7 ± 15.0 dB, with no significant difference between groups (601: 38.5 ± 15.0 dB; 602: 39.1 ± 15.2 dB; p = 0.85). Speech perception improved for all patients postoperatively. No intraoperative complications or revision surgeries were reported.ConclusionThe middle fossa approach for BONEBRIDGE implantation demonstrates favorable audiological benefit and an excellent safety profile. This study reports on a 12-year institutional experience using the middle fossa technique, comparing audiological and surgical outcomes between the first- and second-generation implants. No statistically significant difference was observed between device generations, supporting the ongoing use of this technique for appropriately selected patients.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.