Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

Kitterick, Pádraig T.; O’Donoghue, Gerard M.; Edmondson-Jones, Mark; Marshall, Andrew; Jeffs, Ellen; Craddock, Louise; Riley, Alison; Green, Kevin; O’Driscoll, Martin; Jiang, Dan; Nunn, Terry; Saeed, Shakeel R; Aleksy, Wanda; Seeber, Bernhard U.

doi:10.1186/1472-6815-14-7

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given prior studies demonstrating improved patient satisfaction with BAHD and CI in patients with unilateral losses, we hypothesized that users of these devices would have higher satisfaction and correspondingly higher APHAB scores than their unaided or CROS counterparts . The number of BAHD or CI users in our group was small, with two current users in each group, but the experiences of these patients were quite heterogenous.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in hearing rehabilitation use among vestibular schwannoma patients

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Most patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS) have significant hearing loss in the affected ear as a result of either their tumor or treatment. There is a paucity of data on which hearing rehabilitation options, if any, are preferred by patients with VS. Our study analyzed the use of hearing rehabilitation devices among VS patients.Methods: Patients with unilateral VS treated at our institution from January 2008 to August 2018 were identified. Those with bilateral VS, profound hearing loss in the contralateral ear, neurofibromatosis type 2, or inadequate follow-up were excluded. Patients who met inclusion criteria were given two online questionnaires: an 8-item instrument that assesses use of hearing rehabilitation devices and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit.Results: Of 212 eligible patients, 61 completed both surveys. The majority (88%) were able to hear "poorly" or "not at all" in the affected ear, but less than one-third had ever used a hearing rehabilitation device. Most had used conventional hearing aids (30%) or contralateral routing of signal/bilateral contralateral routing of signal (30%), whereas only a handful had used bone-anchored hearing devices or cochlear implant. Patients who did not pursue hearing rehabilitation were either not bothered by their deficit or were unaware of their options. Most had good functionality despite their deficit.Conclusion: Whereas 88% of patients treated for VS had a significant hearing loss, the majority did not pursue hearing rehabilitation but maintained good functional performance. Many did not remember being counseled about hearing rehabilitation options, indicating that regular and repeated counseling may be needed to increase patient utilization of hearing rehabilitation after VS treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in hearing rehabilitation use among vestibular schwannoma patients

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, they report difficulties in localizing sound and listening to sounds coming from the side of the impaired ear [Agterberg et al, 2014]. These difficulties reflect a lack of access to binaural cues such as interaural time and level differences, and they also show the effect of the acoustic shadow of the head [Kitterick et al, 2014]. The handicap and the difficulties expressed by these patients differ between individuals probably due to several factors such as contralateral hearing, type of social and professional activities, speed of onset, and coping strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness

Leterme

Bernardeschi²,

Bensemman³

et al. 2015

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid to a transcutaneous bone-anchored device in the same conditions. This prospective crossover study included 18 adult patients with a single-sided deafness (SSD). After a trial period of 60 days with CROS and 7 days with a transcutaneous bone-anchored device (Alpha 1®, Sophono, Boulder, Colo., USA) on a headband, 13 (72%) patients opted for Alpha 1, 2 patients for CROS, and 3 rejected both rehabilitation methods. Clinical tolerance, satisfaction, hearing performances (pure-tone audiometry, speech test in quiet and in noise, stereo audiometry, sound localization, and Hearing in Noise Test), and quality of life (Glasgow Benefit Inventory, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaires) were measured at 3 and 12 months after the implantation. Both devices improved equally the hearing in noise and the quality of life. Transcutaneous devices represent an effective option in SSD.

show abstract

“…The loss of hearing in one ear suppresses the interaural time and sound level differences that are responsible for localization [Kitterick et al, 2014]. Patients affected by SSD also show the effect of the acous-USA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiological Results and Quality of Life of Sophono Alpha 2 Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Implant Users in Single-Sided Deafness

Bernardeschi

Russo

Nguyen³

et al. 2016

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-sided deafness (SSD) represents one of the most difficult audiological conditions to rehabilitate. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the audiological benefits and quality of life of patients affected by SSD who had previously been users of the Alpha 1® when upgrading them to the Sophono Alpha 2® external processor (Boulder, Colo., USA). Nine patients were included in the study. They underwent physical examination, free-field speech audiometry at 40 and 60 dB, a hearing-in-noise test (Hirsch's test and the squelch test), the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaire, and a specific questionnaire on patient satisfaction with Alpha 1. Afterwards, the Alpha 2 external processor was delivered to all patients, and the above-mentioned protocol was repeated after 1 month with the Alpha 2. A statistically significant improvement was found in the speech discrimination score at 40 dB and in the squelch test when using the Alpha 2 external processor compared to the Alpha 1. Alpha 2 had a good clinical tolerance and gave similar results in the specific questionnaire and the GBI to Alpha 1. In conclusion, the new Alpha 2 external processor represents a safe and effective device for the rehabilitation of SSD, and there is an audiological benefit to upgrading to the Alpha 2 external processor for patients who had previously been users of the Alpha 1. The improvement in quality of life is similar to that with other bone-anchored hearing devices.

show abstract

Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

Cited by 29 publications

References 52 publications

Trends in hearing rehabilitation use among vestibular schwannoma patients

Trends in hearing rehabilitation use among vestibular schwannoma patients

Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness

Audiological Results and Quality of Life of Sophono Alpha 2 Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Implant Users in Single-Sided Deafness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About