Bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life assess by Glasgow Benefit Inventory

Arunachalan, P.S.; Kilby, D.; Meikle, David; Davison, T. C.; Johnson, I.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00422-5.x

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have previously shown that this change in practice comes with benefits of cost efficiency and better resource allocation [ 2 ]. Here we show additional value in proven patient satisfaction with the MIPS procedure in addition to the well documented improvements in quality of life for BAHD users [ 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Long term follow-up demonstrating stability and patient satisfaction of minimally invasive punch technique for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices

Sardiwalla

Jufas

Morris

2018

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveMinimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) was recently described to facilitate the placement of percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices. As early adopters of this new procedure, we sought to perform a quality assurance project using our own small prospective cohort to justify this change in practice. We chose to examine device stability and to gauge our patients’ perspective of the surgery and their overall satisfaction with the process.MethodsA total of 12 adult patients who underwent MIPS between 2016 and 2017 with a minimum post-operative follow-up of 12 months were included in this study. A prospective MIPS research clinic was used to follow patients, assess the implant site soft tissue status and gather qualitative information through patient interviews and surveys.ResultsThe mean (SD) soft tissue status score averages using the IPS Scale were low for inflammation 0.1 (0.1), pain 0.1 (0.1), skin height 0.2 (0.1) and total IPS score 0.4 (0.3) indicating minimal soft tissue changes. Patient experiences with MIPS were overwhelmingly positive in reports through the MIPS modified SSQ-8. All patients reported speedy recoveries and no long-term complications. There were zero device losses.ConclusionThe series presented in this paper represents the first MIPS cohort with long term follow-up to be published to date in North America. Our findings conclude both device stability and patient satisfaction with no loss of fixtures. Consequently, we have adopted MIPS as our procedure of choice for the placement of all percutaneous BAHDs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Long term follow-up demonstrating stability and patient satisfaction of minimally invasive punch technique for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices

Sardiwalla

Jufas

Morris

2018

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Glasgow Benefit Inventory is used in many studies and has document a significant improvement in patients' wellbeing and state of health [3]. Arunachalan et al [10] showed that significant score in all subscales; general score was ?40, social benefit was ?27 and physical score was ?10. In our study, GBI result showed significant positive score in all sub-scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Bone Anchored Hearing Aid Implant at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC)

Rahim

Goh

Zainor

et al. 2017

Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cross sectional study was conducted in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC), Malaysia from August 2012 to December 2013. All patients implanted with in UKMMC from December 2001 until December 2012 was included. Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaires and UKMMC questionnaires were used as part of the assessment tool. The GBI is a scoring which measures the change in health status produced by surgical interventions. UKMMC questionnaires was invented by our department to assess questions related to social and life style of patients and also the cosmetic perspective Baha implant and other daily related activities. The audiological assessment was assessed using hearing aid gain threshold. Complication with regards to skin reaction was graded using Holger Skin Classification. A total of 40 patients underwent Baha implant were recruited but only 35 patients fulfilled the criteria and included in this study for analysis. Age of patients ranged from 5 year old to 38 year old, with median of 13 years old. There were 22 patients (62.8%) were male and 13 patients (37.1%) were females. Almost all cases were canal atresia except one adult patient was a case of bilateral chronic discharging ear with chronic irritation with ear mould. Majority of patients 21 (60%) have hearing level of moderate to severe hearing loss (40-89 dB) and 14 patients (40%) have mild to moderate hearing loss (20-39 dB). The level of hearing was retested post operatively. All of the patients have improvement in their aided hearing with the range of 10-25 dBL which is statistically significant at value of<0.05. The GBI was scored positively in all subscales. Majority of patients (91.4%) used BAHA more than 4 h per day and 88.6% agreed that BAHA is cosmetically acceptable. All patients experienced some form of skin irritation (Holger grade 1-2) however only 20% required surgical intervention. All our patients have range of 10-25 dB improvement of their aided hearing which is statistically significant at value of<0.05. BAHA has been proven to show significant benefit in audiological improvement and quality of life.

show abstract

“…Bone-anchored hearing implants were developed for individuals who cannot use conventional air-conduction hearing aids owing to an insufficiently stable EEC, or to EEC atresia or severe narrowing (5,13,32). According to previous publications (5,13,32), the leading target population for BAHA 1 consists of COM patients, including for BAHA Attract 1 implantees (13). In the present study too, the leading etiological group comprised COM patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A more specific analysis for establishing a possible association between an etiologic indication for bone-anchored hearing implants and the preferred implant type (Connect 1 or Attract 1 ) was unfortunately impossible in this study because of the availability of devices at the time of implantation: the included patients had been implanted between 2007 and 2017, while BAHA Attract 1 was available only from 2013. Most bone-anchored hearing implants candidates have no effective rehabilitation alternative since, as mentioned above, they cannot use conventional AC hearing aids (5,13,32). Therefore, strict adherence to the audiologic candidacy criteria for the use of BAHA 1 is not necessarily the best approach, as it may lead the clinician to prefer no hearing rehabilitation over a sub-optimal hearing rehabilitation that is obtainable with a bone-anchored hearing implant enhanced by combination with a personal assistive listening technology (35).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hearing Outcomes with Percutaneous and Transcutaneous BAHA® Technology in Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

Tobia

Yehudai

Khnifes

et al. 2021

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate outcomes of BAHA Connect 1 and BAHA Attract 1 implantations, and to examine the prognostic utility of a preimplantation Softband 1 -attached processor trial. Study Design: Retrospective case review Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: Patients who underwent Connect 1 (19 ears) and Attract 1 (25 ears) implantation between 2007 and 2017. Intervention: BAHA 1 implantation. Main Outcome Measures: Unaided air conduction (AC), bone conduction (BC), and speech reception thresholds (SRTs), as well as free field (FF) aided with Softband 1attached processor and with implant-attached processor thresholds. Results: Serviceable implant-attached processor PTA 0.5,1,2 kHz ( 35 dB HL) was achieved in 89 and 88% of the Connect 1 and the Attract 1 ears, respectively, while at 4 kHz this was achieved in 68 and 32% of the Connect 1 and the Attract 1 ears, respectively ( p ¼ 0.032). Significantly more Connect 1 ears showed alignment between FF aided with implant-attached processors thresholds and BC thresholds. The alignment between the Softband 1 -attached processors thresholds and implant-attached processors thresholds was similar in the two groups. Both groups exhibited similar positive improvement in the quality of life questionnaires Conclusions: Accessibility to sound with the implantattached processor is well predicted by the pre-implantation Softband 1 trial, both in the BAHA Connect 1 and in the BAHA Attract 1 ears. Hearing rehabilitation targets at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz are met by most Connect 1 and Attract 1 ears, while at 4 kHz the outcome with Attract 1 is poorer. This information should be presented to the patient during consultation prior to a decision as to the type of BAHA 1 device to be implanted.

show abstract

Bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life assess by Glasgow Benefit Inventory

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

Long term follow-up demonstrating stability and patient satisfaction of minimally invasive punch technique for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices

Long term follow-up demonstrating stability and patient satisfaction of minimally invasive punch technique for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices

Outcomes of Bone Anchored Hearing Aid Implant at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC)

Hearing Outcomes with Percutaneous and Transcutaneous BAHA® Technology in Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About