Patients' opinions of bone-anchored vs conventional hearing aids.
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.
Mylanus
E A
EA
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Snik
A F
AF
Cremers
C W
CW
D001302:Audiometry, Speech; D004867:Equipment Design; D006310:Hearing Aids / Q000009:adverse effects; D006801:Humans; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires