Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:29:23.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can audiometric results predict qualitative hearing improvements in bone-anchored hearing aid recipients?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

M L McNeil ,
M Gulliver ,
D P Morris ,
F M Makki  and
M Bance
M L McNeil
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
M Gulliver
Affiliation:
Nova Scotia Hearing and Speech Centres, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
D P Morris
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
F M Makki
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
M Bance*
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
*
Address for correspondence: Dr M Bance, QEII Health Sciences Centre, 1278 Tower Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 2Y9, Canada Fax: +1 902 473 4345 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Patients receiving a bone-anchored hearing aid have well-documented improvements in their quality of life and audiometric performance. However, the relationship between audiometric measurements and subjective improvement is not well understood.

Methods:

Adult patients enrolled in the Nova Scotia bone-anchored hearing aid programme were identified. The pure tone average for fitting the sound-field threshold, as well as the better and worse hearing ear bone conduction and air conduction levels, were collected pre-operatively. Recipients were asked to complete the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire; their partners were asked to complete a pre- and post-bone anchored hearing aid fitting Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire.

Results:

Forty-eight patients who completed and returned the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire had partners who completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire. The results from the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire correlated with the sound-field hearing threshold post-bone-anchored hearing aid fitting and the pure tone average of the better hearing ear bone conduction (total Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale to the pre-operative better hearing ear air curve (r = 0.3); worse hearing ear air curve (r = 0.27); post-operative, bone-anchored hearing aid-aided sound-field thresholds (r = 0.35)). An improvement in sound-field threshold correlated only with spatial abilities. In the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire, there was no correlation between the subjective evaluation of each patient and their partner.

Conclusion:

The subjective impressions of hearing aid recipients with regards to speech reception and the spatial qualities of hearing correlate well with pre-operative audiometric results. However, the overall magnitude of sound-field improvement predicts an improvement of spatial perception, but not other aspects of hearing, resulting in hearing aid recipients having strongly disparate subjective impressions when compared to those of their partners.

Keywords

Hearing AidsOsseointegrationQuality of LifePartner CommunicationOutcomes Research
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Håkansson, B, Tjellström, A, Rosenhall, U, Carlsson, P. The bone-anchored hearing aid. Principle design and psychoacoustical evaluation. Acta Otolaryngol 1985;100:229–39Google Scholar
2Tjellström, A, Håkansson, B, Granström, G. Bone-anchored hearing aids: current status in adults and children. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2001;34:337–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Verstraeten, N, Zarowski, AJ, Somers, T, Riff, D, Offeciers, EF. Comparison of the audiologic results obtained with the bone-anchored hearing aid attached to the headband, the testband, and to the “snap” abutment. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:70–5Google Scholar
4Niparko, JK, Cox, KM, Lustig, LR. Comparison of the bone anchored hearing aid implantable hearing device with contralateral routing of offside signal amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:73–8Google Scholar
5Hodgetts, WE, Håkansson, BE, Hagler, P, Soli, S. A comparison of three approaches to verifying aided BAHA output. Int J Audiol 2010;49:286–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Sánchez-Camón, I, Lassaletta, L, Castro, A, Gavilán, J. Quality of life of patients with BAHA [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2007;58:316–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Arunachalam, PS, Kilby, D, Meikle, D, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid quality of life assessed by Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1260–3Google Scholar
8Gillett, D, Fairley, JW, Chandrashaker, TS, Bean, A, Gonzalez, J. Bone-anchored hearing aids: results of the first eight years of a programme in a district general hospital, assessed by the Glasgow benefit inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:537–42Google Scholar
9Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 2002;116(suppl 28):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Hol, MK, Spath, MA, Krabbe, PF, van der Pouw, CT, Snik, AF, Cremers, CW et al. The bone anchored hearing aid: quality-of-life assessment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:394–9Google Scholar
11McLarnon, CM, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: comparison of benefit by patient subgroups. Laryngoscope 2004;114:942–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Burrell, SP, Cooper, HR, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. Patient satisfaction with bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids: the Birmingham experience. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 2002;116(suppl 28):37–46Google Scholar
13Bance, M, Abel, SM, Papsin, BC, Wade, P, Vendramini, J. A comparison of the audiometric performance of bone anchored hearing aids and air conduction hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:912–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Wazen, JJ, Spitzer, J, Ghossaini, SN, Kacker, A, Zschommler, A. Results of the bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2001;111:955–8Google Scholar
15Gatehouse, S, Noble, W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004;43:85–99Google Scholar
16House, JW, Kutz, JW Jr, Chung, J, Fisher, LM. Bone-anchored hearing aid subjective benefit for unilateral deafness. Laryngoscope 2010;120:601–7Google Scholar
17Martin, TP, Lowther, R, Cooper, H, Holder, RL, Irving, RM, Reid, AP et al. The bone-anchored hearing aid in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness: experience with 58 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2010;35:284–90Google Scholar
18Kunst, SJ, Leijendeckers, JM, Mylanus, EA, Hol, MK, Snik, AF, Cremers, CW. Bone-anchored hearing aid system application for unilateral congenital conductive hearing impairment: audiometric results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:2–7Google Scholar
19Dumper, J, Hodgetts, B, Liu, R, Brandner, N. Indications for bone-anchored hearing AIDS: a functional outcomes study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;38:96–105Google Scholar
20McNeil, ML, Gulliver, M, Morris, DP, Bance, M. Quality of life improvement for bone-anchored hearing aid users and their partners. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:554–60Google Scholar