Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids in Unilateral Inner Ear Deafness: An Evaluation of Audiometric and Patient Outcome Measurements

Hol, Myrthe K. S.; Bosman, Arjan J.; Snik, A.F.M.; Mylanus, Emmanuel A. M.; Cremers, C.W.R.J.

doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000185065.04834.95

Cited by 147 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vaneecloo et al considered that the restoration of stereo audiometric effect resulting from Baha was a good criterion for implantation -specifically an improvement in understanding of speech-in-noise of over 10% [Vaneecloo et al, 2000]. Using this selection method, Vaneecloo et al reported a high satisfaction rate, which was later confirmed by other groups [Niparko et al, 2003;Hol et al, 2005]. The majority of these studies either focused on satisfaction following Baha-mediated rehabilitation or on comparing satisfaction resulting from various means of rehabilitation for unilateral deafness [Hol et al, 2010].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Baha-Mediated Rehabilitation of Patients with Unilateral Deafness: Selection Criteria

Saroul

Akkari²,

Pavier³

et al. 2013

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of our study was to identify clinical criteria for optimizing rehabilitation of patients with unilateral deafness using the Baha device. We made a retrospective study of 102 patients with unilateral deafness requesting auditory rehabilitation over a period of 5 years. All subjects underwent a series of stereo audiometric tests, with and without Baha worn on a headband, and were then referred to a hearing care specialist for a real life trial of 15 days. The Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI) questionnaire was administered. Patients refusing the implantation were retrospectively submitted to a questionnaire specifically designed to ask the reasons for refusal. We measured stereo audiometric test results, age, aetiology of deafness, duration of auditory deprivation on the rehabilitated ear, and GHSI score. At the conclusion of testing, the implantation rate was 29%. During preoperative testing, the improvement in understanding of speech-in-noise was 22 ± 11% for patients agreeing to the implantation versus 13 ± 11% for patients refusing the implantation. Age, aetiology of deafness and duration of auditory deprivation had no influence on the implantation decision. Speech-in-noise testing and aided stereo audiometric gain were the only two measures showing statistically significant differences between the groups agreeing to and refusing the implantation. There were multiple reasons for refusal of the implantation. Among these, the four principal reasons were: absence of perceived benefit during stereo audiometric testing (59%), requirement for surgery (35%), cost of the solution (44%), and aesthetics (41%). Hence, no other criteria except the preoperative improvement in understanding of speech-in-noise and the aided gain from Baha worn on a headband were found to be predictive of the patient's acceptance of surgical implantation of a bone-anchored implant/abutment for Baha. Speech-in-noise testing with and without Baha worn on a headband has a role to play in deciding on the implantation of a bone-anchored hearing solution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Baha-Mediated Rehabilitation of Patients with Unilateral Deafness: Selection Criteria

Saroul

Akkari²,

Pavier³

et al. 2013

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, performance was still significantly poorer than that reported in studies of bilaterally implanted subjects [Grantham et al, 2008]. Other studies could not confirm improvement in localization in unilaterally implanted subjects [Hol et al, 2005;Verschuur et al, 2005].…”

contrasting

confidence: 40%

“…CROS is an adjunct which has been used for several years in patients with single-sided deafness. There is evidence from the literature that patients with singlesided deafness have a significantly better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) when fitted with a CROS device than unaided patients [Hol et al, 2005;Lotterman and Kasten, 1971]. However, a CROS device has never been studied as an aid to patients with a unilateral CI, a condition which has some similarities to single-sided deafness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit of a Contralateral Routing of Signal Device for Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate objective and subjective effects of an adjunctive contralateral routing of signal (CROS) device at the untreated ear in patients with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI). Design: Prospective study of 10 adult experienced unilateral CI users with bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss. Speech in noise reception (SNR) and sound localization were measured with and without the additional CROS device. SNR was measured by applying speech signals at the untreated/CROS side while noise signals came from the front (S90N0). For S0N90, signal sources were switched. Sound localization was measured in a 12-loudspeaker full circle setup. To evaluate the subjective benefit, patients tried the device for 2 weeks at home, then filled out the abbreviated Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale as well as the Bern benefit in single-sided deafness questionnaires. Results: In the setting S90N0, all patients showed a highly significant SNR improvement when wearing the additional CROS device (mean 6.4 dB, p < 0.001). In the unfavorable setting S0N90, only a minor deterioration of speech understanding was noted (mean -0.66 dB, p = 0.54). Sound localization did not improve substantially with CROS. In the two questionnaires, 12 of 14 items showed an improvement in mean values, but none of them was statistically significant. Conclusion: Patients with unilateral CI benefit from a contralateral CROS device, particularly in a noisy environment, when speech comes from the CROS ear side. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

show abstract

“…10 In addition, the patient with partial or no hearing recovery, or persistent tinnitus, will require ongoing management from otolaryngological, audiological, and psychological perspectives. 11 This guideline is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients (age 18 years and older) who present with SHL. After addressing causes, diagnosis, and treatments of non-SSNHL briefly, this guideline will address SSNHL in detail.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Practice Guideline

Stachler

Chandrasekhar

Archer

et al. 2012

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

787

361

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Sudden hearing loss (SHL) is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a physician. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with SHL. The guideline primarily focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) in adult patients (aged 18 and older). Prompt recognition and management of SSNHL may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life (QOL). Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 20 per 100,000 population, with about 4000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with SHL.Purpose. The purpose of this guideline is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with SHL, with particular emphasis on managing SSNHL. The panel recognized that patients enter the health care system with SHL as a nonspecific, primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of the guideline deal with efficiently distinguishing SSNHL from other causes of SHL at the time of presentation. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, the guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients.Results. The panel made strong recommendations that clinicians should (1) distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss in a patient presenting with SHL; (2) educate patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy; and (3) counsel patients with incomplete recovery of hearing about the possible benefits of amplification and hearing-assistive technology and other supportive measures. The panel made recommendations that clinicians should (1) assess patients with presumptive SSNHL for bilateral SHL, recurrent episodes of SHL, or focal neurologic findings; (2) diagnose presumptive ISSNHL if audiometry confirms a 30-dB hearing loss at 3 consecutive frequencies and an underlying condition cannot be identified by history and physical examination; (3) evaluate patients with ISSNHL for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining magnetic resonance imaging, auditory brainstem response, or audiometric follow-up; (4) offer intratympanic steroid perfusion when patients have incomplete recovery from ISSNHL after failure of initial management; and (5) obtain follow-up audiometric evaluation within 6 months of diagnosis for patients with ISSNHL. The panel offered as options that clinicians may offer (1) corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with ISSNHL and (2) hyperbaric oxygen therapy within 3 months of diagnosis of ISSNHL. The panel made a recommendation against clinicians routinely prescribing antivirals,...

show abstract

Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids in Unilateral Inner Ear Deafness: An Evaluation of Audiometric and Patient Outcome Measurements

Cited by 147 publications

References 25 publications

Baha-Mediated Rehabilitation of Patients with Unilateral Deafness: Selection Criteria

Baha-Mediated Rehabilitation of Patients with Unilateral Deafness: Selection Criteria

Benefit of a Contralateral Routing of Signal Device for Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Clinical Practice Guideline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About