PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to discuss our experiences with an implantable bone conduction hearing prosthesis, the XOMED Audiant Bone Conductor (Jacksonville, FL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients who had been implanted with the Audiant Bone Conductor were interviewed by telephone following implantation. Questions were asked regarding use of the device and subjective benefit. RESULTS: Eleven patients are using their devices, 12 patients are not using their devices, and one patient has been lost to follow-up. Patients using the device report satisfaction and prefer the Audiant to other amplification systems, whereas those not using the device indicate that insufficient amplification or weak magnetic attraction prevent its use. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of failures has altered our criteria for implantation. With improvements that have been made by XOMED and stricter patient criteria, the Audiant should be considered a viable amplification alternative for certain hearing-impaired patients.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to discuss our experiences with an implantable bone conduction hearing prosthesis, the XOMED Audiant Bone Conductor (Jacksonville, FL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients who had been implanted with the Audiant Bone Conductor were interviewed by telephone following implantation. Questions were asked regarding use of the device and subjective benefit. RESULTS: Eleven patients are using their devices, 12 patients are not using their devices, and one patient has been lost to follow-up. Patients using the device report satisfaction and prefer the Audiant to other amplification systems, whereas those not using the device indicate that insufficient amplification or weak magnetic attraction prevent its use. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of failures has altered our criteria for implantation. With improvements that have been made by XOMED and stricter patient criteria, the Audiant should be considered a viable amplification alternative for certain hearing-impairedpatients.