Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them?

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Siau ◽  
B Dhillon ◽  
R Andrews ◽  
K M J Green
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Uptake Rate ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Sensorineural Deafness ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Device Implantation ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid

AbstractObjectives:This study aimed to report the bone-anchored hearing aid uptake and the reasons for their rejection by unilateral sensorineural deafness patients.Methods:A retrospective review of 90 consecutive unilateral sensorineural deafness patients referred to the Greater Manchester Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Programme between September 2008 and August 2011 was performed.Results:In all, 79 (87.8 per cent) were deemed audiologically suitable: 24 (30.3 per cent) eventually had a bone-anchored hearing aid implanted and 55 (69.6 per cent) patients declined. Of those who declined, 26 (47.3 per cent) cited perceived limited benefits, 18 (32.7 per cent) cited reservations regarding surgery, 13 (23.6 per cent) preferred a wireless contralateral routing of sound device and 12 (21.8 per cent) cited cosmetic reasons. In all, 32 (40.5 per cent) suitable patients eventually chose the wireless contralateral routing of sound device.Conclusion:The uptake rate was 30 per cent for audiologically suitable patients. Almost half of suitable patients did not perceive a sufficient benefit to proceed to device implantation and a significant proportion rejected it. It is therefore important that clinicians do not to rush to implant all unilateral sensorineural hearing loss patients with a bone-anchored hearing aid.

scholarly journals Investigating the Impact of Hearing Aid Use and Auditory Training on Cognition, Depressive Symptoms, and Social Interaction in Adults With Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Crossover Trial (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Nkyekyer ◽  
Denny Meyer ◽  
Peter J Blamey ◽  
Andrew Pipingas ◽  
Sunil Bhar
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

BACKGROUND Sensorineural hearing loss is the most common sensory deficit among older adults. Some of the psychosocial consequences of this condition include difficulty in understanding speech, depression, and social isolation. Studies have shown that older adults with hearing loss show some age-related cognitive decline. Hearing aids have been proven as successful interventions to alleviate sensorineural hearing loss. In addition to hearing aid use, the positive effects of auditory training—formal listening activities designed to optimize speech perception—are now being documented among adults with hearing loss who use hearing aids, especially new hearing aid users. Auditory training has also been shown to produce prolonged cognitive performance improvements. However, there is still little evidence to support the benefits of simultaneous hearing aid use and individualized face-to-face auditory training on cognitive performance in adults with hearing loss. OBJECTIVE This study will investigate whether using hearing aids for the first time will improve the impact of individualized face-to-face auditory training on cognition, depression, and social interaction for adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The rationale for this study is based on the hypothesis that, in adults with sensorineural hearing loss, using hearing aids for the first time in combination with individualized face-to-face auditory training will be more effective for improving cognition, depressive symptoms, and social interaction rather than auditory training on its own. METHODS This is a crossover trial targeting 40 men and women between 50 and 90 years of age with either mild or moderate symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Consented, willing participants will be recruited from either an independent living accommodation or via a community database to undergo a 6-month intensive face-to-face auditory training program (active control). Participants will be assigned in random order to receive hearing aid (intervention) for either the first 3 or last 3 months of the 6-month auditory training program. Each participant will be tested at baseline, 3, and 6 months using a neuropsychological battery of computer-based cognitive assessments, together with a depression symptom instrument and a social interaction measure. The primary outcome will be cognitive performance with regard to spatial working memory. Secondary outcome measures include other cognition performance measures, depressive symptoms, social interaction, and hearing satisfaction. RESULTS Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in June 2018. CONCLUSIONS Results from the study will inform strategies for aural rehabilitation, hearing aid delivery, and future hearing loss intervention trials. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03112850; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03112850 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xz12fD0B).

Exposure of weak magnetic fields on auditory nerve of patients with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 63-67
Author(s):  
S. V. Surma ◽  
◽  
D. S. Klyachko ◽  
B. F. Shchegolev ◽  
E. A. Ogorodnikova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Magnetic Fields ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Auditory Nerve ◽  
Health Hazard ◽  
Sensorineural Deafness ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Alternative Methods

The article shows that one of the alternative methods of treating moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss can be the use of an external weak magnetic field. The proposed method is based on the coincidence of the effects caused by the exposure of an external electromagnetic field of certain parameters on the auditory nerve, and natural acoustic exposure. The similarity of reaction allows using of external magnetic fields as an artificial stimulator of the auditory system’s neural part. Induction of applied magnetic fields does not exceed 300 µT, which means that under the current legislation such fields are classified as posing no health hazard. This method was tested at Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Ear, Throat, Nose, and Speech based on relevant Ethics Committee approval and complied with informed consent standards of volunteers. 15 patients aged 18 to 45 with III and IV levels of sensorineural deafness without concomitant pathologies were tested. Threshold pure-tone audiometry was performed on each patient at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz before and after the procedure. The results of the experiments showed that electromagnetic stimulation of auditory neurons allows increasing hearing sensitivity. The proposed procedure may not yield a tangible result in patients with auditory deprivation. Patients with hearing aids showed the most significant results. At the same time, the measurements have shown that the sound thresholds among them became 10 dB lower on the average. The non-invasiveness of the exposure provided additional comfort for the patient.

Evaluation of Hardwire Personal Assistive Listening Devices

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Dempsey ◽  
Mark Ross
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Subjective Evaluations ◽  
Potential Benefits

A large number of personal amplifiers have recently become available commercially. These devices have not been classified as hearing aids by the FDA and are therefore not subject to the FDA rules and regulations governing the sales of hearing aid devices. In this investigation, several of these personal amplifiers were evaluated to determine potential benefits and problems for each device. The devices were evaluated electroacoustically and, also, subjectively by a group of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The results of the electroacoustic evaluation revealed very sharply peaked frequency responses. The subjective evaluations revealed tremendous variability, with some preferences for power and low-frequency amplification. Clinical implications of these results and suggestions for further research are provided.

Atresia and Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. 241-248
Author(s):  
Steven P. Smith ◽  
Simon Milov ◽  
Joel A. Goebel
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conductive Hearing

This case study summarizes findings in an adult male, aged 57, who presented to the Adult Audiology Clinic with aural atresia in the right ear resulting in a conductive hearing loss and a sudden sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. Treatment options included reconstruction surgery in the right ear, bone anchored hearing aid in the right ear to overcome the conductive hearing loss, bone anchored hearing aid in the left ear for single sided deafness, and intratympanic steroid injections in the left ear to salvage hearing.This case study highlights that when a patient is educated on all available options the patient is then able to make a decision comfortable to him and to help improve his hearing.

scholarly journals Analysis of the results of hearing aids fitting using the questionnaire «Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile»

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
L. E. Golooanooa ◽  
E. V. Zhiunskaya ◽  
M. . Yu
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

164 patients with moderate to severe ehronie bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were asked to fill in the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile. Its usefulness was showed in eases of diffieult hearing aid fitting.

Prescriptive Amplification Recommendations for Hearing Losses with a Conductive Component and Their Impact on the Required Maximum Power Output: An Update with Accompanying Clinical Explanation

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (06) ◽  
pp. 452-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earl E. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Compression Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Maximum Power Output ◽  
Conductive Component

Background: Hearing aid prescriptive recommendations for hearing losses having a conductive component have received less clinical and research interest than for losses of a sensorineural nature; as a result, much variation remains among current prescriptive methods in their recommendations for conductive and mixed hearing losses (Johnson and Dillon, 2011). Purpose: The primary intent of this brief clinical note is to demonstrate differences between two algebraically equivalent expressions of hearing loss, which have been approaches used historically to generate a prescription for hearing losses with a conductive component. When air and bone conduction thresholds are entered into hearing aid prescriptions designed for nonlinear hearing aids, it was hypothesized that that two expressions would not yield equivalent amounts of prescribed insertion gain and output. These differences are examined for their impact on the maximum power output (MPO) requirements of the hearing aid. Subsequently, the MPO capabilities of two common behind-the-ear (BTE) receiver placement alternatives, receiver-in-aid (RIA) and receiver-in-canal (RIC), are examined. Study Samples: The two expressions of hearing losses examined were the 25% ABG + AC approach and the 75% ABG + BC approach, where ABG refers to air-bone gap, AC refers to air-conduction threshold, and BC refers to bone-conduction threshold. Example hearing loss cases with a conductive component are sampled for calculations. The MPO capabilities of the BTE receiver placements in commercially-available products were obtained from hearing aids on the U.S. federal purchasing contract. Results: Prescribed gain and the required MPO differs markedly between the two approaches. The 75% ABG + BC approach prescribes a compression ratio that is reflective of the amount of sensorineural hearing loss. Not all hearing aids will have the MPO capabilities to support the output requirements for fitting hearing losses with a large conductive component particularly when combined with significant sensorineural hearing loss. Generally, current RIA BTE products have greater output capabilities than RIC BTE products. Conclusions: The 75% ABG + BC approach is more appropriate than the 25% ABG + AC approach because the latter approach inappropriately uses AC thresholds as the basis for determining the compression ratio. That is, for hearing losses with a conductive component, the AC thresholds are not a measure of sensorineural hearing loss and cannot serve as the basis for determining the amount of desired compression. The Australian National Acoustic Laboratories has been using the 75% ABG + BC approach in lieu of the 25% ABG + AC approach since its release of the National Acoustic Laboratories—Non-linear 1 (NAL-NL1) prescriptive method in 1999. Future research may examine whether individuals with conductive hearing loss benefit or prefer more than 75% restoration of the conductive component provided adequate MPO capabilities to support such restoration.

scholarly journals Hearing Aids as a Treatment for Tinnitus Patients with Slight to Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (02) ◽  
pp. 123-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Johnson ◽  
Johnathan Baldwin ◽  
Kristen Barton ◽  
Caitlyn Mathews ◽  
Jeffrey Danhauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Stepwise Logistic Regression ◽  
Tinnitus Severity ◽  
Point Increase

AbstractPersons with clinically significant tinnitus also may have mild sensorineural hearing loss (MSNHL). The purpose of this study was to describe patients with tinnitus and MSNHL and factors predicting hearing-aid uptake (HAU). We conducted a retrospective chart review with regression modeling of patients presenting to a specialty tinnitus clinic over a 2.5-year period. Stepwise logistic regression on data from patient charts was conducted. Of 133 patients seen, two-thirds had MSNHL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.9–75.0; mean age = 53.4 years; standard deviation = 14.5); approximately 50% had severe-to-catastrophic tinnitus. Logistic regression indicated that four-frequency pure-tone average (FFPTA; left) (β = 0.3899, χ 2 = 10.96, degrees of freedom [DF] = 1, p = 0.0009) and age (β = 0.1273, χ 2 = 4.86, DF = 1, p = 0.0274) were positively associated with HAU; tinnitus severity was inversely related (β = − 1.0533, χ 2 = 4.24, DF = 1, p = 0.0395). Adjusting for key variables, odds of receiving hearing aids was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.01–1.27) times higher with every year increase in age, 1.48 (95% CI: 1.17–1.86) times higher per one point increase in FFPTA (left), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.13–0.95) times less per one point increase in tinnitus severity score. Reasons why HAU was not high for this special sample of young adults with severe tinnitus and MSNHL are discussed; hearing aid treatment requires extensive counseling and follow-up for this population.

Temporary Increase in Sensorineural Hearing Loss with Hearing Aid Use

1979 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Patricia Heffernan ◽  
Marsha R. Simons
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Temporary Increase ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Power Outputs

Two cases are presented exhibiting temporary increases in sensorineural hearing loss following hearing aid use. Data suggesting this correlation are shown. There were no contributing middle ear problems during the period surveyed. The most significant changes in hearing thresholds were at frequencies 1000 and 2000 Hz. The use of different hearing aids, with decreased maximum power outputs, was not found to have similar effects on hearing threshold levels. A scheduling regime is recommended for introducing any new hearing aid to a child.

Motivational Interviewing as an Adjunct to Hearing Rehabilitation for Patients with Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (08) ◽  
pp. 669-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Zarenoe ◽  
Lena Lindhe Söderlund ◽  
Gerhard Andersson ◽  
Torbjörn Ledin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Motivational Interviewing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Purpose: To test the effects of a brief motivational interviewing (MI) program as an adjunct to hearing aid rehabilitation for patients with tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss. Research Design: This was a pilot randomized controlled trial. Study Sample: The sample consisted of 50 patients aged between 40 and 82 yr with both tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss and a pure-tone average (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) < 70 dB HL. All patients were first-time hearing aid users. Intervention: A brief MI program was used during hearing aid fitting in 25 patients, whereas the remainder received standard practice (SP), with conventional hearing rehabilitation. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 46 patients (N = 23 + 23) with tinnitus were included for further analysis. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) were administered before and after rehabilitation. THI was used to investigate changes in tinnitus annoyance, and the IOI-HA was used to determine the effect of hearing aid treatment. Results: Self-reported tinnitus disability (THI) decreased significantly in the MI group (p < 0.001) and in the SP group (p < 0.006). However, there was greater improvement in the MI group (p < 0.013). Furthermore, the findings showed a significant improvement in patients’ satisfaction concerning the hearing aids (IOI-HA, within both groups; MI group, p < 0.038; and SP group, p < 0.026), with no difference between the groups (p < 0.99). Conclusion: Tinnitus handicap scores decrease to a greater extent following brief MI than following SP. Future research on the value of incorporating MI into audiological rehabilitation using randomized controlled designs is required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document