An intra-individual comparison of the previous conventional hearing aid with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Nijmegen group questionnaire

2002 ◽  
Vol 116 (S28) ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Louise McDermott ◽  
Sunil N. Dutt ◽  
Andrew P. Reid ◽  
David W. Proops
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Total Response Rate ◽  
Individual Comparison ◽  
Assess Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Retrospective Questionnaire

By spring 2000, a total of 351 patients were implanted in the Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) programme. This group consisted of 242 adults and 109 children. The aim of this retrospective questionnaire study was to directly assess patient satisfaction with their current bone-anchored hearing aid in comparison with their previous conventional air and/or bone-conduction hearing aids.The Nijmegen group questionnaire was sent by post to 312 patients who used their BAHA for six months or longer. The questionnaire used was first described by Mylanus et al. (Nijmegen group) in 1998. The total response rate was 72 per cent (227 of 312 patients). The bone-anchored hearing aid was found to be significantly superior to prior conventional hearing aids in all respects.

Binaural Application of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

1998 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Andy J. Beynon ◽  
Catharina T. M. van der Pouw ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Listening Condition ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Listening

Most, but not all, hearing-impaired patients with air conduction hearing aids prefer binaural amplification instead of monaural amplification. The binaural application of the bone conduction hearing aid is more disputable, because the attenuation (in decibels) of sound waves across the skull is so small (10 dB) that even one bone conduction hearing aid will stimulate both cochleas approximately to the same extent. Binaural fitting of the bone-anchored hearing aid was studied in three experienced bone-anchored hearing aid users. The experiments showed that sound localization, and speech recognition in quiet and also under certain noisy conditions improved significantly with binaural listening compared to the monaural listening condition. On the average, the percentage of correct identifications (within 45°) in the sound localization experiment improved by 53% with binaural listening; the speech reception threshold in quiet improved by 4.4 dB. The binaural advantage in the speech-in-noise test was comparable to that of a control group of subjects with normal hearing listening monaurally versus binaurally. The improvements in the scores were ascribed to diotic summation (improved speech recognition in quiet) and the ability to separate sounds in the binaural listening condition (improved sound localization and improved speech recognition in noise whenever the speech and noise signals came from different directions). All three patients preferred the binaural bone-anchored hearing aids and used them all day.

A Speech-to-Noise Ratio Test with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid: A Comparative Study

1986 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 421-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peder Carlsson ◽  
Bo Håkansson ◽  
Ulf Rosenhall ◽  
Anders Tjellström
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Ratio Test ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Minor Surgery ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid

Hitherto, for persons with impaired hearing who cannot use an air conduction hearing aid, the only alternative has been a conventional spring-loaded bone conduction hearing aid. Now, with minor surgery, a titanium screw can be implanted in the bone behind the ear and a coupling, which penetrates the skin, can be attached, giving a new kind of hearing aid—the “bone-anchored hearing aid.” Improved quality of sound is one of the patients’ subjective assessments. Improvement was not confirmed by a standard speech-discrimination test. With new speech material consisting of sentences in noise, the speech-to-noise ratio (SN) has been determined for 24 patients. Patients who previously used a conventional bone conduction hearing aid improved their SN on the average by 3.3 dB. The most important difference between the two aids related to improved SN is probably the increased audibility between 600 and 6000 Hz.

scholarly journals Vibrant Soundbridge and Bone Conduction Hearing Aid in Patients with Bilateral Malformation of External Ear

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 034-038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Mondelli ◽  
Thais Mariano ◽  
Heitor Honório ◽  
Rubens Brito
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
External Ear ◽  
Vibrant Soundbridge ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid

Introduction Hearing loss is the most common clinical finding in patients with malformation of the external ear canal. Among the possibilities of treatment, there is the adaptation of hearing aids by bone conduction and the adaptation of implantable hearing aids. Objective To assess speech perception with the use of Vibrant Soundbridge (VBS - MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) associated with additional amplification in patients with bilateral craniofacial malformation. Method We evaluated 11 patients with bilateral malformation over 12 years with mixed hearing loss or bilateral conductive. They were using the Softband (Oticon Medical, Sweden) and bone conduction hearing aid in the ear opposite the one with the VSB. We performed the evaluation of speech perception using the Hearing in Noise Test. Results Participants were eight men and three women with a mean of 19.5 years. The signal / noise ratio presented significant results in patients fitted with VSB and bone conduction hearing aid. Conclusion The results of speech perception were significantly better with use of VBS combined with bone conduction hearing aids.

The Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) in Children with Auricular Malformations

1997 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 238-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gösta Granström ◽  
Anders Tjellström
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Middle Ear Surgery ◽  
Ear Reconstruction ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Middle Ear Reconstruction

A retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the outcome of the use of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in children. All patients included in the study had bilateral auricular malformations. Previous alternatives had been conventional hearing aids or surgical middle ear reconstruction. Thirty-seven patients under 16 years of age were studied. The most common syndrome in the group was Treacher Collins. Sixteen of the patients had earlier middle ear reconstruction, the results of which did not produce social hearing. Of 40 inserted fixtures to anchor the BAHA, three were lost during the follow-up period because of failed osseointegration. Skin reactions were graded according to a clinical scoring system and were determined to be comparable in number and severity to those of an adult population. All patients in the study considered the BAHA to be superior to earlier bone-conduction devices. It is concluded that the BAHA is an excellent alternative to bone-conduction devices in children with auricular malformations. Middle ear surgery can be postponed until adulthood or abandoned, especially in syndromic patients in whom it is known to be difficult and unpredictable.

Estimation of the Benefit of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids

1994 ◽  
Vol 103 (11) ◽  
pp. 872-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
George G. Browning ◽  
Stuart Gatehouse
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Chronic Otitis Media ◽  
Valuable Alternative ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Air Conduction

Implantable bone conduction hearing aids are a valuable alternative to conventional aids for those who cannot use a conventional air conduction aid or find it difficult to use because of an aural discharge, most commonly due to chronic otitis media. Previously reported series of the use of a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) come from the originators of this device, and an independent report of their benefit and use, especially in previous air conduction aid users, would be of value. Twenty-three patients were evaluated at least 6 months after implantation of a BAHA. All 7 previous bone conduction aid users were delighted with their BAHA, reporting increased comfort and hearing benefit that was backed by audiometric evidence. Of the 16 individuals who previously used an air conduction aid, 11 (69%) were delighted users of their BAHA. Unfortunately, the other 5 (31%) reverted to solely using their air conduction aid. There was no obvious predictor as to how these individuals might have been identified prior to implantation. In particular, their pure tone thresholds, especially the bone conduction thresholds, were no different from those of the 11 BAHA users. However, in free field audiometry, the users gained superior benefit from their BAHA compared to their air conduction aid, whereas the nonusers did not. In conclusion, in all series to date, previous users of a conventional bone conduction aid have been delighted users of a BAHA and have gained superior audiometric benefit. This is not necessarily the case with previous air conduction aid users. As most patients rate hearing ability to be more important than absence of an aural discharge, it is important to develop methods that might predict benefit from a BAHA prior to implantation.

Bone anchored hearing aid wearers with significant sensorineural hearing losses (borderline candidates): patients' results and opinions

1996 ◽  
Vol 110 (21) ◽  
pp. 41-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. H. Hartland ◽  
D. W. Proops
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Queen Elizabeth Hospital ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Children's Hospital ◽  
Children’S Hospital ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Range

AbstractBone anchored hearing aids (BAHA) have been implanted in Birmingham since 1988. Since this time confidence has grown in the fitting and rehabilitation of BAHA wearers, with a corresponding increase in the implantation and rehabilitation of more difficult and borderline candidates.This study analyses the results of 16 borderline BAHA candidates who have been assessed and fitted with a BAHA at Birmingham Children's Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital, and who have had at least one post-fitting review. All of these subjects had mean bone conduction (BC) thresholds, in the better hearing ear, in excess of 45 dBHL in the frequency range 0.5–4 kHz, when initially assessed. The age range at the time of the study was 10–84 years, with a mean age of 60 years. The study demonstrates the benefits that these patients achieved with the BAHA compared to their previous aid, both audiologically and in terms of comfort and reduction in ear discharge.

Audiological Results of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid HC200: Multicenter Results

1994 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Frank F. Jorritsma ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers ◽  
Hans Verschuure
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Sixty-two patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (average bone conduction threshold at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz ranged from 1 to 44 dB hearing level) were fitted with a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA type HC200). Previously, 52 of them had used a conventional bone conduction hearing aid (CBHA) and 10 of them an air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). Audiological tests were conducted to compare the patients' performance with the BAHA to that with their previous conventional hearing aid. In the speech recognition in quiet test, only 5 patients in the CBHA group improved significantly: the majority had 100% scores with both hearing aids. In the speech recognition in noise test, 28 patients improved significantly. The mean improvement in the signal to noise ratio (S/N) in the CBHA group was −2.3 ± 2.4 dB. That none of the patients in the CBHA group performed worse with the BAHA led us to the conclusion that the BAHA is superior to the CBHA. None of the patients in the ACHA group achieved a better speech recognition in quiet score using the BAHA. On average, there was no significant improvement in the S/N ratio in the ACHA group, although in 6 patients the S/N ratio improved significantly, and in 1 patient it worsened significantly. From the whole group, the performance of only 2 patients, both in the ACHA group, was significantly worse with the BAHA on one of the speech recognition tests.

Speech Recognition with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Determined Objectively and Subjectively

1994 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
AFM Snik ◽  
EAM Mylanus ◽  
CWRJ Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Skin Irritation ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Air Conduction ◽  
Head Level ◽  
Better Than

Some patients with a bone-conduction hearing aid experience serious problems such as skin irritation or headaches and inconsistency in the sound quality due to shifting of the transducer over the mastoid. The Bone Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) provides direct bone-conduction and therefore evades these problems. Results of 58 patients fitted with either the head level BAHA HC200 or the more powerful HC220 were available for evaluation. Speech recognition-in-quiet and in-noise tests were performed in order to make a comparison between the patients’ performance with their individually adapted BAHA and their previous hearing aid. Furthermore, all the patients filled out a questionnaire, involving questions on speech recognition-in-quiet and in-noisy surroundings. Individual comparisons of the audiological and questionnaire results in the subgroup of patients who had used a bone-conduction hearing aid showed that the results with the BAHA were comparable with or significantly better than those with the previous bone-conduction hearing aid. The results in the patients who had previously used an air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous.

scholarly journals 209 A Comparison of Soft Tissue Reactions Seen with Different Bone Anchored Hearing Aid Abutments: Smooth-Titanium Vs Hydroxyapatite-Coated

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
R George ◽  
J Wasson
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Soft Tissue Reactions ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Tissue Reactions

Abstract Aim Bone Anchored Hearing Aids allow hearing via stimulation of the cochlear through bone conduction. These devices are largely successful; however, soft tissue reactions often hinder their benefit. The type of abutment used could contribute to complications. We aimed to investigate whether using smooth-titanium abutments instead of hydroxyapatite-coated abutments reduced the rate of soft tissue reactions and need for revision surgery. Method A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients who received a Bone Anchored Hearing Aid during a 3-year period. An electronic database was screened for skin reactions and surgical revisions. A comparison was made between patients who received a hydroxyapatite-coated abutment and smooth-titanium abutments. The same surgical technique, linear incision skin preservation surgery, was used for inserting both abutments. Results Sixty-six patients received a Bone Anchored Hearing Aid. Forty-five patients received hydroxyapatite-coated abutments and twenty-one received smooth-titanium abutments, two patients had smooth-titanium inserted bilaterally. The groups were significantly similar with regards to age and gender. Significantly more patients who received hydroxyapatite-coated abutments recorded soft tissue reactions, 77.78% vs 23.81% (p < 0.0001). Significantly more patients who received hydroxyapatite-coated abutments required surgical revision, 40% vs 9.52% (p = 0.0197). 17.14% underwent skin revision and change of abutment. 5.7% had the abutments removed and were not immediately replaced. Conclusions When utilising skin preservation surgery for Bone Anchored Hearing Aid insertion smooth-titanium abutments have a favourable complication profile; with less soft tissue reactions and subsequent need for revision surgery, in comparison with hydroxyapatite-coated abutments. The reasons behind these differences warrant further investigations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document