Association of Bone Conduction Devices for Single-Sided Sensorineural Deafness With Quality of Life

Hampton, Thomas; Milinis, Kristijonas; Whitehall, Emma; Sharma, Sunil Dutt

doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2021.2769

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greater improvement in the speech-hearing subscale reflected WRS improvement. A meta-analysis of the effects of BCDs on the quality of life of patients with SSD concluded that BCDs improved the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefits and the SSQ but not the Health Utilities Index-3 (Hampton et al, 2022). In the same study, the mean difference was 2.03 for speech and 1.51 for spatial hearing, indicating a greater improvement than that obtained in the present study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

“…Patients with SSD often have worse sound localization abilities and speech recognition difficulties in noisy and other challenging listening situations due to the loss of binaural processing (Welsh et al, 2004;Yu, 2020). The use of BCDs by patients with SSD improves speech perception and provides subjective benefits (Pfiffner et al, 2009;Wazen et al, 2010;Wesarg et al, 2013;Hampton et al, 2022;Huber et al, 2022). Their effects on speech discrimination in noise have been controversial and dependent on the signal setting and noise direction; however, a systematic review that assessed the efficacy of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) concluded they have favorable effects based on speech discrimination in noisy circumstances (Kim et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pros and cons of a bone-conduction device implanted in the worse hearing ear of patients with asymmetric hearing loss

Kurihara,

Ganaha,

Nakamura

et al. 2024

Front. Audiol. Otol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeBone-conduction devices can be considered a viable treatment option for patients experiencing asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), especially those with severe to profound hearing loss (HL) present in one ear. However, there are only a few reports on the effects of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) on patients with AHL. This retrospective study analyzed in detail the effects of BAHA on softer sounds than other hearing aids and identified situations in which BAHA had a negative effect.MethodsPatients with AHL, characterized by severe to profound hearing loss in one ear with a difference of ≥45 dB from that of the contralateral ear, underwent BAHA implantation in the ear with worse hearing. The BAHA effects were evaluated by assessing the word recognition score (WRS) and speech reception threshold (SRT) using the Japanese Oldenburg Sentence Test for various signal settings and noise directions. For a subjective analysis, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12) score was determined.ResultsThirteen patients who underwent BAHA implantation at the Miyazaki University Hospital between 2007 and 2021 were included. The BAHA demonstrated a significant improvement in the WRS from 40 to 70 dB sound pressure levels. Although the SRT showed significant improvement in noisy environments when speech was presented to the BAHA-wearing side, it worsened significantly when noise was presented to this side. In the survey of subjective hearing ability, both the total and subscale SSQ12 scores improved significantly after wearing the BAHA.ConclusionThis study identified scenarios in which BAHAs were beneficial and detrimental to individuals with AHL. Generally used audiological tests, such as the WRS with fixed sound pressure, may underestimate the effectiveness of BAHAs for softer sounds. In addition, depending on the direction of the noise, BAHAs may have adverse effects. These results could help patients comprehend the potential benefits and limitations of bone-conduction devices for their hearing.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pros and cons of a bone-conduction device implanted in the worse hearing ear of patients with asymmetric hearing loss

Kurihara,

Ganaha,

Nakamura

et al. 2024

Front. Audiol. Otol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, it is believed that stimulation of the contralateral auditory pathway may play an important role in suppressing experienced tinnitus [71]. Regarding the effects of BCD on QoL, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that BCD are associated with significant improvements in hearingrelated QoL as measured by the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) https://harlmemphis.org/abbreviated-profile-of-hearing-aid-benefit-aphab/ (accessed on 10 January 2024) and SSQ (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale) scores in adult patients, while no difference was found in generic measures of QoL as measured by the HUI-3 (Health Utilities Index-3) [72].…”

Section: Bone Conduction Devices (Bcd): Surgically Implanted Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Sided Deafness and Hearing Rehabilitation Modalities: Contralateral Routing of Signal Devices, Bone Conduction Devices, and Cochlear Implants

Pantaleo,

Murri,

Cavallaro

et al. 2024

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single sided deafness (SSD) is characterized by significant sensorineural hearing loss, severe or profound, in only one ear. SSD adversely affects various aspects of auditory perception, including causing impairment in sound localization, difficulties with speech comprehension in noisy environments, and decreased spatial awareness, resulting in a significant decline in overall quality of life (QoL). Several treatment options are available for SSD, including cochlear implants (CI), contralateral routing of signal (CROS), and bone conduction devices (BCD). The lack of consensus on outcome domains and measurement tools complicates treatment comparisons and decision-making. This narrative overview aims to summarize the treatment options available for SSD in adult and pediatric populations, discussing their respective advantages and disadvantages. Rerouting devices (CROS and BCD) attenuate the effects of head shadow and improve sound awareness and signal-to-noise ratio in the affected ear; however, they cannot restore binaural hearing. CROS devices, being non-implantable, are the least invasive option. Cochlear implantation is the only strategy that can restore binaural hearing, delivering significant improvements in speech perception, spatial localization, tinnitus control, and overall QoL. Comprehensive preoperative counseling, including a discussion of alternative technologies, implications of no treatment, expectations, and auditory training, is critical to optimizing therapeutic outcomes.

show abstract

Modern Advances in Bone Conduction–Hearing Devices

Casazza

Kesser

2022

Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Association of Bone Conduction Devices for Single-Sided Sensorineural Deafness With Quality of Life

Cited by 5 publications

References 42 publications

Pros and cons of a bone-conduction device implanted in the worse hearing ear of patients with asymmetric hearing loss

Pros and cons of a bone-conduction device implanted in the worse hearing ear of patients with asymmetric hearing loss

Single-Sided Deafness and Hearing Rehabilitation Modalities: Contralateral Routing of Signal Devices, Bone Conduction Devices, and Cochlear Implants

Modern Advances in Bone Conduction–Hearing Devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About