Quality of Life of Patients With BAHA

Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 2010

Conclusion: The overall results show a high ratio of satisfaction in the sample population, which is in accordance with a successful BAHA counselling and rehabilitation of their hearing impairment. Objectives: The acceptance of a bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA) device by a south European population, which could be expected to have some reticence for wearing this device, has been investigated. Methods: The outcome of BAHA implantation was assessed in 24 patients with bilateral and unilateral hearing loss by administration of several questionnaires, such as the Handicap Hearing Inventory (HHI), Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI), Open and General Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Entific Medical System QoL, along with a complete audiological test battery. Results: Speech reception threshold (SRT) in bilateral cases improved both in quiet and in noise. In unilateral cases, word perception and accuracy of sound localization improved when sound was presented from the back. COSI scores, at both the intermediate and the final evaluations, showed a fair adaptation level of the patients and their satisfaction for prefixed targets.

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2008

We compared the indices of satisfaction and use among patients wearing an osseo-integrated prosthesis BAHA (bone anchored hearing aid) according to the indications: conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL) and patients with single side deafness (SSD). The study was carried out among patients wearing a BAHA Wtted in one of three French departments between November 2001 and November 2005. Each patient received a postal questionnaire relating to the ease of use and the daily utilization period of the prosthesis, as well as a satisfaction rating (from 1 to 10) evaluating improvement in quality of life, overall satisfaction, improvement in sound localization and satisfaction from the aesthetic point of view. In total, 170 out of 231 patients responded to the questionnaire (response rate of 73.5%). The average age at the time of Wtting of the BAHA was 56 years (18-79 years). The SSD group was composed of 118 patients (69.4%): 92 following surgery for vestibular schwannoma, 2 following surgery for meningioma and 24 with "other" causes (e.g. idiopathic sudden deafness, sensori neural hearing loss complicating surgery of the middle ear). The CHL group was composed of 52 patients (30.5%): 44 patients with a chronic otitis and 8 with a malformation of the middle ear. The average duration of use of the prosthesis was 22 months (3-72 months). The average utilization period was higher than 8 h per day in 48.5% of cases. There was a signiWcant diVerence between the two groups concerning the quality of life (p < 0.0001), general satisfaction (p < 0.0001) and sound localization (p < 0.01). There was no signiWcant diVerence concerning aesthetics. Among the patients of the CHL group, the levels of satisfaction and quality of life are comparable with recent data in the literature with scores of good or very good. The BAHA thus remains one of the methods of choice for hearing rehabilitation in this group of patients. Among the patients of the SSD group, the levels of satisfaction and quality of life are signiWcantly poorer than in the CHL group, but remain generally good with the exception of sound localization.The treatment of SSD patients with a BAHA is interesting. A study comparing the BAHA with the WIFI CROS system is justiWed in order to ascertain the respective advantages of these two treatment options.

Otology &amp; Neurotology, 2008

To analyze the short-, medium-, and long-term benefits from and satisfaction with the Baha for patients with profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Design: Prospective clinical study. Setting: Head and Neck Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. Patients: Eight patients with acquired profound unilateral SNHL. Interventions: Patients underwent unaided baseline testing and aided Baha testing using laboratory and self-report measures at 6 postfitting intervals. Main Outcome Measures: Laboratory measures included the revised Speech Perception in Noise test, Hearing in Noise Test, and localization testing. Disease-specific self-report measures included the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults, and Single-Sided Deafness Questionnaire. The Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 Health Survey was used to assess health-related quality of life. Results: Based on 95% confidence intervals for unaided testing, significant improvements on aided revised Speech Perception in Noise, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults scores were sustained during the 18-month test interval. Variable performance was observed for the Hearing in Noise Test over time and patients. No acclimatization effects were shown for localization testing or the generic health-related quality-of-life measure. Patients reported satisfaction in a variety of situations as quantified by the Single-Sided Deafness Questionnaire in the long-term. Conclusion: The Baha is effective in reducing psychosocial consequences of unilateral profound SNHL for the long-term. Improvement in speech understanding occurred when the primary signal was spatially separated from background noise. Localization performance did not improve with Baha use. Overall, patients were satisfied with their Baha and would still elect to have this procedure if given a second chance.

Otology &amp; Neurotology, 2008

Implantation with the Baha system. Main Outcome Measure: Incidence and type of complications associated with Baha implantation and patient satisfaction as measured by a questionnaire administered on site or by telephone. Results: In our series of 218 patients (223 ears), there were no major complications. Of these patients, 4.5% required revision surgery for soft tissue complications and 1.3% needed revision for failure of osseointegration. Eight percent (8%) required local care and resolved within 2 to 3 weeks of treatment. Five percent (5%) required in office procedures. One hundred six (106) patients satisfactorily completed the survey questionnaire. Ninety-two percent (92%) reported using the device regularly and 77% were happy with the device. On average, patients reported using the device 10.1 h/d, 5.6 d/wk. Conclusion: The Baha system is safe and effective in the rehabilitation of patients with conductive or mixed hearing losses and with single-sided deafness. The high success rate, patient satisfaction rate, and predictable auditory outcome place the Baha among the leading choices for auditory rehabilitation.

2000

Bone Anchored Hearing Aid has advantages when compared to conventional bone conduction devices. Conventional bone conduction devices have some problems like skin irritation for the constant pressure, the aesthetics that is extremely bad and the difficulty of maintaining the device in children, because it is easily removable. Other indications are chronic draining ears, wall down mastoidectomyte and external otitis. The

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2012

A bone-anchored hearing aid (Baha) is used in patients with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD) to overcome the head shadow eVect. Of all the patients with SSD, treated at our hospital, 196 patients used a Baha on trial between November 2001 and April 2010. The objective of this study is to evaluate what factors determine the decision of a SSD patient whether or not to opt for a Baha device following a Baha trial period. 196 patients with SSD were enrolled for a trial period of 2 weeks at the Antwerp University Hospital, a tertiary referral centre. 93% of these patients suVered from an acquired hearing loss. 44% of all the patients (87/196) chose to wear a Baha device after the trail period, either on an abutment or on a headband. The collected data were analysed to determine correlations between the decision of a patient following a Baha trial period on the one hand, and Fletcher Index ipsi-and contralaterally, bone conduction hearing thresholds at the better hearing ear, aetiology, age at the start of the trial period, duration of hearing loss at the start of the trial period and the type of device used during the trial period, on the other hand. Although 66% of all the patients (109/196) declined the Baha after a trial, reasons not to choose a Baha were diverse and no crucial factors could be found that determine the success of a Baha trial period. Lack of improvement concerning speech understanding in noise was the most important reason mentioned by patients who declined the Baha. The authors advocate that all patients, suVering from SSD, should be oVered the opportunity to try a Baha device as no factors could be found that determine the decision of a patient following the trial period.

Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences, 1999

The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids A retrospective study was performed on 78 patients from a consecutive series who received a BAHA HC199:299 after having previously used conventional bone conduction hearing aids[ The patients| performance with the BAHA HC 199:299 was compared to their performance with conventional bone conduction hearing aids[ The patients were divided into two groups\ depending on the time of implantation "before or after May 0881#[ The patients in group 0 "long!term users# were asked to _ll in a questionnaire\ the same one as they had _lled in at the initial BAHA _tting more than 4 years previously[ The answers were compared to their original opinions and di}erence scores were calculated[ The long!term clinical results from group 0 are also presented[ Although they are encouraging\ the patients| opinion about the BAHA deteriorated somewhat over time[ The audiometric results of group 1 were highly comparable with those of group 0[ This con_rms the positive results with the BAHA found in previous studies[ Keywords bone!anchored hearin`aid bone conduction hearin`aid hearin`loss speech reco`nition sound quality

Auditory and Vestibular Research

Background and Aim: Investigations have shown that the patient’s attitudes toward hearing loss and hearing aids impact hearing aid benefits and its use. In this regard, Saunders and Cien­kowski (1996) developed the “attitudes towards loss of hearing questionnaire” to examine some of the psychosocial factors underlying the use of hearing aids. This study has focused on pre­paring a Persian version of this questionnaire and analyzing its validity and reliability. Methods: The original English version of the questionnaire was translated into Persian, and its content and face validities were determined by related experts. The final questionnaire was administered to 100 hearing impaired people (52 males and 48 females) aged 30 to 65 years with the mean (SD) age of 54.54 (12.05) years. The test-retest reliability was assessed in 20 pat­ients. Results: The results of face validity assessment revealed that our questionnaire has a high quality in translation, intelligibility, and cultural co...

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2014

Journal of the …, 2007

This is the final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Benefits of Amplification in A d u l t s. A systematic review with meta-analysis examined evidence pertaining to the use of hearing aids for improving HRQoL for adults with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Relevant search strings applied to the C E N T R A L, CINAHL, Cochrane reviews, ComDisDome, EBMR, and PubMed databases identified randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental pretest/posttest designed studies. Sixteen studies met a priori criteria for inclusion in this review. A r a n d o me ffects meta-analysis showed differential results for generic versus disease-specific HRQoL measures for within-and betweensubject designs. Although generic measures used for within-subject designs did not demonstrate HRQoL benefits from hearing aids, mean effect sizes and confidence intervals for within-subject designs and disease-specific instruments suggested that hearing aids have a small-to-medium impact on HRQoL. F u r t h e r, the between-subject studies supported at least a small effect for generic measures, and when measured by disease-specific instruments, hearing aids had medium-to-large effects on adults' HRQoL. This review concludes that hearing aids improve adults' H R Q o L by reducing psychological, social, and emotional effects of SNHL. Future studies should include control groups using randomized controlled trials.