Bone‐Anchored Hearing Aid: Comparison of Benefit by Patient Subgroups

Abstract

The study demonstrated the differences in benefit within patient subgroups. Its results can be used to give patients a predictive value at the time of preoperative counseling. The study identified congenital ear disorders as the group likely to obtain maximal benefit. Notably, for the first time, the study demonstrated the documented benefit of restoring stereo hearing to patients who have acquired unilateral hearing loss following acoustic neuroma surgery using a BAHA.

Results and complications of the Baha system (bone-anchored hearing aid)

“…The mean score was slightly higher in children, but in terms that were not statistically signiWcant. The substantial improvement in the quality of life of patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss who underwent Baha implantation has been reported by numerous other authors [9,18,32,38,39] and there are probably various contributing factors: this is probably due most commonly to the lack of or diYculty in Wnding valid alternatives, as is the case with patients who suVer from aural atresia, who cannot use air-conduction hearing aids, or chronic otitis media, in which the fact that the external auditory canal is not closed leads to a marked reduction in relapses. Furthermore, it has been shown that direct bone conduction means good sound quality, which patients deWne as more "natural" compared to that of conventional air-or boneconduction hearing aids [40].…”

“…In a series of patients with bilateral aural atresia treated with reconstructive surgery, Chang et al [2] found a long-term residual air-bone gap that averaged 30 dB HL, whereas Digoy and Cueva [31] reported a mean residual gap of 23 dB HL. In a study by McLarnon et al [32] performed on 69 patients with various types of ear pathologies who underwent a Baha implant, the patients with aural atresia were the ones who showed the best results in terms of improvement in the quality of life. This could be due to the fact that these patients usually present a good cochlear reserve, unlike those with other middle-ear disorders, such as chronic otitis and otosclerosis, in which the auditory threshold for bone conduction was often altered [3].…”

Bone-anchored hearing aids (Baha) in congenital aural atresia: Personal experience

“…This substantial improvement in quality of life has already been amply documented by the literature [18,20,21,27] and various factors probably contribute to this. For example, it has been demonstrated that direct bone conduction offers good sound quality, which patients define as more ''natural'' compared to that of conventional hearing aids [14].…”

“…The validity of the Baha system to treat conductive or mixed hearing loss has been widely documented in the literature [14][15][16][17][18][19], and in this field aural atresia currently represents the main indication for the use of the Baha in pediatric patients. In a study conducted on 69 patients with various types of ear disease, McLarnon et al [20] demonstrated that those with aural atresia are the ones who achieve the best results with a Baha implant. This is evidently due to the fact that these patients usually present good cochlear reserve, unlike those with other middle-ear disorders such as chronic otitis and otosclerosis [15].…”

A Systematic Review of the Nonacoustic Benefits of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids

“…Results for nonacoustic benefits of BAHAs on new hearing aid users demonstrated perceived benefit as measured by the disease-specific QOL measures of the GBI and the HHIA or HHIE. Only descriptive statistics were used to document the nonacoustic benefits of BAHAs on the GBI for several of the studies (Arunachalam, Kilby, Meikle, et al, 2001;Dutt, McDermott, Burrell, et al, 2002;McLarnon, Davison, & Johnson, 2004). However, statistical significance was demonstrated for the nonacoustic benefits of BAHAs when the Visual Analog Scale of the GBI (Dutt, McDermott, Jelbert, et al, 2002) and the HHIA were used (Wazen, Spitzer, Ghossaini, et al, 2001).…”