The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues

The Birmingham osseointegration programme began in 1988 and during the following 10 years there were a total of 351 bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) implantees. In the summer of 2000, a postal questionnaire study was undertaken to establish the impact of the bone-anchored hearing aid on all aspects of patients' lives. We used the Glasgow benefit inventory (GBI), which is a subjective patient orientated post-interventional questionnaire especially developed to evaluate any otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. It is maximally sensitive to any change in health status brought about by a specific event: in this case the provision of a BAHA. A total of 312 bone-anchored hearing aid patients, who had used their aids for a minimum period of six months, were sent GBI questionnaires. Two hundred and twenty-seven questionnaires were returned and utilized in the study. The results revealed that the use of a bone-anchored hearing aid significantly enhanced general well being (patient benefit), improved the patient's state of health (quality of life) and finally was considered a success by patients and their families.     

An intra-individual comparison of the previous conventional hearing aid with the bone-anchored hearing aid: The Nijmegen group questionnaire

By spring 2000, a total of 351 patients were implanted in the Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) programme. This group consisted of 242 adults and 109 children. The aim of this retrospective questionnaire study was to directly assess patient satisfaction with their current bone-anchored hearing aid in comparison with their previous conventional air and/or bone-conduction hearing aids. The Nijmegen group questionnaire was sent by post to 312 patients who used their BAHA for six months or longer. The questionnaire used was first described by Mylanus et al. (Nijmegen group) in 1998. The total response rate was 72 per cent (227 of 312 patients). The bone-anchored hearing aid was found to be significantly superior to prior conventional hearing aids in all respects.     

Bone-anchored hearing aid: comparison of benefit by patient subgroups

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The osseointegrated bone-anchored hearing aid, using the Branemark system, is well established and has proven benefit. The aim was to study quality of life benefits within patient subgroups using the validated Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective questionnaire study. METHODS: Ninety-four consecutive patients were enrolled into the study. Mean patient age was 49 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 1.1:1. Patient subgroups were discharging mastoid cavities, chronic active otitis media, congenital ear problems, otosclerosis, and acoustic neuroma and other unilateral hearing losses. RESULTS: The response rate was 73%. The score for total benefit of bone-anchored hearing aid fitting for the entire group was +33.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 25-42). Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores for each subgroup were all greater than +20. The congenital atresia group scored highest with +45 (95% CI, 28-61). Variation in benefit across the subgroups has been demonstrated. Fitting of BAHA following acoustic neuroma surgery was shown to be of benefit with a score of +22.2. General benefits scored highest in all subgroups compared with physical and social benefits. CONCLUSION: 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.     

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: The bone-anchored hearing aid in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness: experience with 58 patients

Clin. Otolaryngol. 2010, 35 , 284–290 Objectives: To assess the efficacy of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness (SSD). Study design: Retrospective case–control series review. Setting: Tertiary referral unit. Patients: 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. Main outcome measurements: 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.     

Clinical results with a percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid

During a 2-year period ending in July 1987, nine patients were implanted with a percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid developed at the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. Patient selection was based on the presence of conductive or mixed hearing loss in patients who are unable to wear a conventional hearing aid because of infection or ear canal problems. Patients had speech discrimination scores of at least 60% for phonetically balanced monosyllables (CID lists) at 40 dB above threshold, and a pure tone bone conduction average of 45 dB hearing loss or better. Patients were evaluated in sound field, preoperatively and postoperatively using warble tones, speech reception threshold, speech discrimination, and synthetic speech identification. The patient's unaided hearing and hearing with a bone-anchored hearing aid were compared with the patient's hearing with a standard bone conduction hearing aid. Signal to noise ratio testing with the synthetic speech identification test demonstrated that the bone-anchored hearing aid was comparable to a standard bone conduction aid. There were no complications in our series. Five patients who reported otorrhea with conventional hearing aids experienced no otorrhea after implantation. Patient satisfaction, as assessed by questionnaire, revealed that all patients preferred the bone-anchored hearing aid to previously worn hearing aids.     

Patient satisfaction with bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids: the Birmingham experience

The Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) programme has fitted more than 300 patients with unilateral bone-anchored hearing aids since 1988. Some of the patients who benefited well with unilateral aids and who had used bilateral conventional aids previously applied for bilateral amplification. To date, 15 patients have been fitted with bilateral BAHAs. The benefits of bilateral amplification have been compared to unilateral amplification in 11 of these patients. Subjective analysis in the form of validated comprehensive questionnaires was undertaken. The Glasgow benefit inventory (GBI), which is a subjective patient orientated post-interventional questionnaire developed to evaluate any otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy was administered. The results revealed that the use of bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids significantly enhanced general well being (patient benefit) and improved the patient's state of health (quality of life). The Chung and Stephens questionnaire which addresses specific issues related to binaural hearing was used. Our preliminary results are encouraging and are comparable to the experience of the Nijmegen BAHA group.     

Results of the bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral hearing loss

OBJECTIVES: The advantages of binaural hearing are well established and universally accepted. However, a tendency remains to withhold the benefits of binaural hearing to adults and children with one normal ear. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the benefit of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in a group of patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective study of nine patients (five males and four female patients) with conductive or mixed hearing loss who met the criteria for BAHA except for having normal hearing in the other ear. They had congenital aural atresia or mastoidectomies secondary to chronic ear infections with or without cholesteatoma or had a temporal bone tumor excised METHODS: Patients had evaluations before and after implantation, including audiological testing and responses to a standardized hearing handicap questionnaire. Statistical analyses of the data were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the paired Student t test for repeated measures. RESULTS: All patients had tonal and spondee threshold improvement with BAHA when compared with thresholds before treatment. Speech recognition performance in BAHA-aided conditions was comparable to the patient's best score in unaided condition. Patients reported a significant improvement in their hearing handicap scores with the BAHA. CONCLUSIONS: The use of BAHA has significantly improved the hearing handicap scores in patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. The proven safety and efficacy of the device promote its use in unilateral cases that traditionally had been left unaided.     

Patients' attitudes to the bone-anchored hearing aid. Results of a questionnaire study

A questionnaire constructed to evaluate subjective patient opinions about a new bone-anchored hearing aid was sent to the first 65 patients who underwent this treatment. All 62 patients who were reached responded to the questions formulated according to the critical incident approach. 74% of the patients stated that they were very pleased with what they regarded as an improved sound transmission. 32% of the patients had noticed a qualitative improvement and the same percentage spontaneously commented on their improved cosmetic appearance with the new hearing aid.     

Hearing with the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA,HC 200) compared to a conventional bone-conduction hearing aid

Sixteen patients have been fitted with a standard bone-anchored hearing aid (HC 200), to replace their conventional bone-conduction aid. The average pure tone threshold at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz varied from 35 to 75 dB HL, with a sensorineural component varying from 0 to 30 dB HL. The patients' performance with the bone-anchored aid was compared to that with the conventional bone-conduction aid in an acoustic-free field. The maximum phoneme score in quiet was 100% in most patients; in 6 patients, the score with the bone-anchored aid was better (range from 5 to 10%). The speech-in-noise ratio was significantly better in 11 patients (range from—1.4 to—8 dB). None of the patients had poorer results on either test with the bone-anchored aid. The improved speech recognition was ascribed to better performance of the hearing aid in the higher frequency range (above 2 kHz) and to relatively less distortion.     

Hearing with the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA, HC 200) compared to a conventional bone-conduction hearing aid.

Sixteen patients have been fitted with a standard bone-anchored hearing aid (HC 200), to replace their conventional bone-conduction aid. The average pure tone threshold at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz varied from 35 to 75 dB HL, with a sensorineural component varying from 0 to 30 dB HL. The patients' performance with the bone-anchored aid was compared to that with the conventional bone-conduction aid in an acoustic-free field. The maximum phoneme score in quiet was 100% in most patients; in 6 patients, the score with the bone-anchored aid was better (range from 5 to 10%). The speech-in-noise ratio was significantly better in 11 patients (range from -1.4 to -8 dB). None of the patients had poorer results on either test with the bone-anchored aid. The improved speech recognition was ascribed to better performance of the hearing aid in the higher frequency range (above 2 kHz) and to relatively less distortion.     

Hearing disability and hearing aid benefit related to type of hearing impairment

This study was designed to investigate whether patients with a conductive hearing impairment derive more benefit from the provision of a hearing aid than comparable individuals with a sensorineural hearing impairment. A secondary aim was to assess the relative hearing disability of those with each type of impairment. Twenty-eight patients with a bilateral, symmetrical conductive impairment were selected. They were matched for age, sex and speech frequency average to individuals with a bilateral, symmetrical sensorineural hearing impairment. Each patient performed free-field audio and audio-visual tests in noise, both with and without a hearing aid, during which the non-test ear was acoustically occluded. When unaided, individuals with a conductive impairment were more disabled than those with a sensorineural impairment. On the other hand, those with a conductive impairment derived more benefit from an aid than those with a sensorineural impairment.     

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

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: The bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) is a well established mode of treatment and many studies show the audiological benefit, but none has assessed the benefit to the quality of life of patients. This study uses the validated Glasgow Benefit Inventory to quantify the changes in quality of life. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective questionnaire study. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients receiving treatment with BAHA were enrolled in the study. The male/female ratio was 1.26 to 1; mean patient age was 45 years. The most common indication was hearing loss secondary to mastoid disease and surgery followed by congenital atresia and chronic discharge from the ear. RESULTS: The response rate was 85%, which is high and adds weight to the results. The general benefit score was +34 (range, +27-+48), which is comparable to middle ear surgery but just below benefit from cochlear implantation. The social benefit was +21 (range, +12-+37) with only +10 (range, +2-+26) for the physical score. This pattern mirrors that reported for other ear interventions. Maximum benefit was noted in patients with congenital atresias followed by discharging mastoid cavities. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate significant quality of life benefit from BAHA surgical intervention as measured by the Glasgow Benefit Inventory.     

Speech recognition ability in noise and its relationship to perceived hearing aid benefit

Hearing-impaired listeners with similar hearing losses may differ widely in their ability to understand speech in noise. Such individual susceptibility to noise may explain why patients obtain varying degrees of benefit from hearing aids. The chief purpose of this study was to determine if adaptive measures of unaided speech recognition in noise were related to hearing aid benefit. Additionally, the relationship between perceived hearing handicap and benefit from amplification was explored. Before being fit with hearing aids, 47 new hearing aid users completed a self-assessment measure of hearing handicap Then, unaided speech recognition ability was measured in quiet and in noise. Three months later, subjects completed a hearing aid benefit questionnaire. A weak relationship was observed between perceived hearing handicap and hearing aid benefit. There were no significant relationships between speech-in-noise measures and hearing aid benefit, suggesting that speech recognition ability in noise is not a major determinant of the benefit derived from amplification.     

A bone-anchored hearing aid for patients with pure sensorineural hearing impairment: a pilot study

This pilot study assesses the potential benefits of an optimized bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) for patients with a mild to moderate pure sensorineural high frequency hearing impairment. The evaluation was conducted with eight first-time hearing aid users by means of psycho-acoustic sound field measurements and a questionnaire on subjective experience; all of the patients benefited from the BAHA. On average, the eight patients showed improvement in PTA threshold of 3.4 dB and in speech intelligibility in noise of 14%. Seven of the subjects, also fitted with present standard air conduction hearing aids (ACHA) found the ACHA thresholds to be improved more than the BAHA ones. In speech tests, the ACHA was only slightly better; these patients chose between their different hearing aids according to the sound environment. Although the BAHA was preferred for wearing and sound comfort, it cannot be used as the sole aid for patients with pure sensorineural impairment.     

Long-term results of bone-anchored hearing aid recipients who had previously used air-conduction hearing aids

OBJECTIVE: To study the long-term results (use, care, satisfaction, ear infections, and audiometry) of the application of a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) to patients with conventional indications who had previously used air-conduction hearing aids. DESIGN: Follow-up study (mean duration, 9 years). SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The study population comprised 27 patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss and who had participated in a previous study (N = 34). Seven could not be included anymore as a result of death, Alzheimer disease, or problems related to the implant. Everyone filled out the questionnaire, and 23 patients underwent audiometric evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The patients filled out the adapted Nijmegen questionnaire. Aided free-field thresholds were measured as well as scores for speech in noise and in quiet. Results were compared with those obtained in the initial study. RESULTS: All 27 patients were still using their BAHA and appreciated it with regard to speech recognition in quiet, sound comfort, and improvements in ear infections. The audiometric results showed that most patients tested had stable bone-conduction thresholds over the years (after correction for age). Despite the treatment with BAHA, a significant deterioration in the cochlear hearing was observed in the other patients in the ear under study (their best hearing ear). CONCLUSIONS: Positive patient outcome measures emphasized the importance of BAHA application to patients with conventional indications. The audiometric data showed fairly stable cochlear function but not for all patients. This underlines that conservative treatment should be chosen (fitting of bone-conduction devices).     

The bone-anchored hearing aid. Principal design and a psychoacoustical evaluation

Hearing aids can be divided into two groups, distinguished by the principle of how sound is transmitted to the cochlea. The greatest and most important group is that consisting of air conduction (AC) hearing aids, whereas the other group consisting of bone conduction (BC) hearing aids is relatively small but nevertheless important for patients with particular types of hearing disorder. Conventional bone conduction hearing aids are not in common use, mainly because of several drawbacks. The implantation of a titanium screw into the mastoid portion of the temporal bone has made it possible to obtain a permanent and reaction-free rigid penetration of the skin. A newly developed bone conduction hearing aid was connected to such a screw. This new hearing aid is named 'the bone-anchored hearing aid' (BAHA) and it is characterized by a single housing construction. The transducer piston of the BAHA is directly connected to the titanium screw by a low-profile coupling arrangement. Ten patients were equipped with this new hearing system. In a comprehensive questionnaire, all patients reported that they preferred the BAHA to their old hearing aid. The major reasons were improvements in practical arrangements, wearing comfort, aesthetic appearance, and sound quality. Improvements in speech reception were not verified by the discrimination tests, but 6 out of 10 patients subjectively reported clearly improved sound quality. The group of patients who may benefit from the BAHA of present standard includes patients with a sensorineural hearing loss of at most 50-60 dB HL.     

The super-bass bone-anchored hearing aid compared to conventional hearing aids. Audiological results and the patients' opinions.

Twelve patients with severe mixed hearing loss (PTA ranging from 70 to 108 dB HL) were provided with the percutaneous 'super-bass HC 220' bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) to replace their former hearing aid. Five had previously worn an air-conduction hearing aid (behind-the-ear type, BTE) which could no longer be used because of recurrent otorrhoea; the others had previously worn a conventional (transcutaneous) bone-conduction hearing aid (CBHA) which had caused serious complaints, such as headaches or skin irritation. Free-field speech audiometry in the subgroup of patients who used to wear a CBHA revealed that the maximum intelligibility score with the BAHA was equal to or better than that obtained with the CBHA (range from 0 to +27%). In three of the five patients who used to wear a BTE, the speech scores were poorer with the BAHA than with the BTE (range from -13 to -40%). For the remaining two patients, the difference in scores was 0 and +10%. In conclusion, speech recognition with the BAHA HC220 in the patients with severe mixed hearing loss was comparable to, or better than, that with a CBHA. Compared to an air-conduction hearing aid, the results may be considerably poorer. The results of the questionnaire were in good agreement with the measurements and support the conclusions.     

Retrospective analysis of skin complications related to bone-anchored hearing aid implant: association with surgical technique,quality of life,and audiological benefit

Introduction

The bone-anchored hearing aid is an effective form of auditory rehabilitation. Due to the nature of the implant, the most common complications are skin related. A number of alternative surgical implantation techniques have been used to reduce the frequency and severity of skin complications, including the U-shaped graft and the linear incision.

Bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral inner ear deafness: a study of 20 patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) contralateral routing of sound (CROS) in 20 patients with unilateral inner ear deafness. SUBJECTS: 21 patients were recruited; 15 had undergone acoustic neuroma surgery and 6 patients had unilateral profound hearing loss due to other causes; 1 patient was excluded. Only patients with thresholds of better than 25 dB HL (500-2000 Hz) and an air-bone gap of less than 10 dB in the best ear were included. METHODS: Evaluation involved audiometric measurements before intervention, when fitted with a conventional CROS and after implementation and quantification of the patients' subjective benefit with a hearing aid-specific instrument: the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). RESULTS: Lateralization scores were not significantly different from chance (50%) in any of the three conditions. Measurements of speech perception in noise showed an increase in the signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio) with the conventional CROS (p = 0.001) and with the BAHA CROS compared to the unaided condition when speech was presented at the front with noise on the poor hearing side. On the other hand, a lower S/N ratio was seen with the BAHA CROS (p = 0.003) compared to the unaided situation when noise was presented at the front with speech on the poor hearing side. The patient outcome measure (APHAB) showed improvement, particularly with the BAHA CROS. CONCLUSIONS: The poor sound localization results illustrate the inability of patients with unilateral inner ear deafness to localize sounds. The speech-in-noise measurements reflect the benefit of a BAHA CROS in lifting the head shadow while avoiding some of the disadvantages of a conventional CROS. The benefit of the BAHA CROS was most clearly reflected in the patients' opinion measured with the APHAB.     

The bone-anchored hearing aid: quality-of-life assessment

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) on the quality of life (QOL) of adults and to test the hypothesis that a BAHA improves QOL because otorrhea and/or skin irritations decrease. DESIGN: Prospective postal-based questionnaire study using validated health-related QOL instruments, combined with hearing-aid-related questions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 56 consecutive adult patients with acquired conductive or mixed hearing loss who were scheduled for BAHA implantation at the University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. All 56 patients completed the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and the Hearing Handicap and Disability Inventory (HHDI); 36 patients had been using an air-conduction hearing aid (ACHA) and 20 patients a conventional bone-conduction hearing aid (CBHA). Questionnaires were filled out before surgery and after 6 months of experience with the BAHA. RESULTS: In the SF-36 group, there was significant improvement in the scores of the mental health domain (P =.02). When the SF-36 patients were classified according to previous hearing aid, there was no statistically significant change in the scores in any of the domains. In the EQ-5D group and in its ACHA and CBHA subgroups, there were no important differences in the results before and after the patients received their BAHAs. In the HHDI group, the handicap and disability scales showed significant improvement (P<.01) irrespective of the type of previously worn hearing aid. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, generic health-related QOL was not influenced significantly by the use of a BAHA according to the SF-36 and the EQ-5D. The more disease-specific scales (HHDI) did show improved QOL with a BAHA.