Factors Influencing the Decision for Baha in Unilateral Deafness: The Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness Questionnaire

Kompis, Martin; Pfiffner, Flurin; Krebs, Martin; Caversaccio, M

doi:10.1159/000323591

Cited by 51 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, we have seen that the sex, age and duration of auditory deprivation are not factors influencing rehabilitation. Kompis et al [2011] had similar results. In this study the sex, age, duration of deafness and residual hearing in the poorer ear are not factors influencing the decision of implantation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

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

“…This finding is not consistent with our objective results of the Oldenburg Sentence Test, where patients clearly showed a profit in the favorable situation S90N0 and only a minor deterioration in the unfavorable situation S0N90. This mismatch was already described by Kompis et al [2011], who investigated crucial factors influencing the decision for a boneanchored hearing aid device in unilateral deafness. There was no correlation between the threshold of the SNR, the result of the Freiburg numbers or mean sound field threshold with the scores of the questionnaires.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

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

et al. 2014

Self Cite

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

“…Two questionnaires were administered for each patient: 1) A modified version of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire (SSQ) (26), the SSQ-B (27); 2) the Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness Questionnaire (BBSS) questionnaire (28). Both questionnaires specifically ask participants to compare their hearing abilities in the aided condition versus the unaided condition on an ordinal scale ranging from j5 (much worse) to +5 (much better).…”

Section: Questionnairesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Results and Subjective Benefit of a Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Device in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness

Laske

Röösli

Pfiffner

et al. 2015

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors Influencing the Decision for Baha in Unilateral Deafness: The Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness Questionnaire

Cited by 51 publications

References 13 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

Functional Results and Subjective Benefit of a Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Device in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About