title: Patients' opinions of bone-anchored vs conventional hearing aids.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate patients' opinions of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) compared with a conventional hearing aid.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective study with two questionnaires. Questionnaire A consisted of questions that compared patients' previous hearing aid with the BAHA. Questionnaire B consisted of questions about the patients' experiences with the hearing aids.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty-five consecutive patients who had used conventional hearing aids.
  
  
  METHODS
  Tertiary referral center.
  
  
  METHODS
  A percutaneous titanium implant in the temporal bone for the BAHA.
  
  
  METHODS
  Qualitative descriptive results of questionnaire A and difference scores from questionnaire B comparing conventional hearing aids and the BAHA.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Patients favored the BAHA to the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid. Patients with BAHA reported a significant improvement in speech recognition in quiet and in noise, in sound quality, and in comfort (P < .01). The results with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous for speech recognition, but all the patients reported a decrease in ear infections.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The BAHA is a good alternative for the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid if a patient can no longer use an air-conduction hearing aid.
authors.affiliation: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: E A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Mylanus
authors.forename: A F
authors.initials: AF
authors.lastname: Snik
authors.forename: C W
authors.initials: CW
authors.lastname: Cremers
mesh_terms: D001302:Audiometry, Speech; D004867:Equipment Design; D006310:Hearing Aids / Q000009:adverse effects; D006801:Humans; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires