The bone-anchored hearing aid in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness: experience with 58 patients.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness (SSD).


METHODS
Retrospective case-control series review.


METHODS
Tertiary referral unit.


METHODS
Fifty-eight consecutive patients that had a bone-anchored hearing aid for single-sided deafness completed outcome questionnaires, building upon earlier audiological assessment of 19 patients. Single-sided deafness controls (n = 49) were mainly acoustic neuroma patients.


METHODS
speech discrimination testing in directional noise, speech and spatial qualities of hearing questionnaire and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI).


RESULTS
The mean follow-up time was 28.4 months. Five (13%) of the bone-anchored hearing aid patients were non-users because of lack of benefit. The audiometric testing confirmed that when noise was on the bone-anchored hearing aid side speech perception was reduced but benefited when noise was on the side of the hearing ear. There was no difference between the Speech and Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scores in bone-anchored hearing aid users and controls. In particular there was no difference in the spatial subscores. In the bone-anchored hearing aid users the median Glasgow Benefit Inventory score was 11. If the non-users are included then 13 (22%) patients had no or detrimental (negative) Benefit scores. No or negative benefit scores were more frequent in those deaf for <10 years. In open-field questions, patients felt the bone-anchored hearing aid was most useful in small groups or in 'one-to-one' conversation.


CONCLUSIONS
Bone-anchored hearing aid rehabilitation for single-sided deafness is less successful than for other indications, reflected here by relatively low median Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores. There was also no significant difference between controls and bone-anchored hearing aid users in the Speech and Spatial Qualities of Hearing Questionnaire. Patients with a longer duration of deafness report greater subjective benefit than those more recently deafened, perhaps due to differing expectations.
Martin
T P C
TP
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK. tpcmartin@blueyonder.co.uk
Lowther
R
R
Cooper
H
H
Holder
R L
RL
Irving
R M
RM
Reid
A P
AP
Proops
D W
DW
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001299:Audiometry; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006310:Hearing Aids; D046088:Hearing Loss, Unilateral / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D053441:Suture Anchors; D016896:Treatment Outcome