Abbreviated Profile Of Hearing Aid Benefit Research Articles

Audiological assessment with Matrix sentence test of percutaneous vs transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: a pilot study.

The study evaluated if there were differences between two types of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA), percutaneous vs transcutaneous implants in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. Eleven patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss in the implanted ear with a bone conduction pure-tone average (BC PTA) of the hearing threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000Hz ≤ 55dB HL, aged > 5years. Patients were assigned to two groups: percutaneous implant (BAHA Connect) and transcutaneous implant (BAHA Attract). Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by the implant, and the variation in the quality of life after the surgery. No differences were found comparing the data of Matrix SRT. APHAB and GBI questionnaires did not show a statistically significant difference comparing each subscale and the global score. The comparison of scores obtained from the SADL questionnaire demonstrated a difference in the "Personal Image" subscale with a better score for the transcutaneous implant. Furthermore, the Global Score of the SADL questionnaire was statistically different between groups. Other subscales did not show any significant difference. A Spearman's ρ correlation test was used to evaluate if the age could influence the SRT results; no correlation was found between age and SRT. Furthermore, the same test was used to confirm a negative correlation between SRT and the global benefit of the APHAB questionnaire. The current research confirms the absence of statistically significant differences comparing percutaneous and transcutaneous implants. The Matrix sentence test has shown the comparability of the two implants in the speech-in-noise intelligibility. Actually, the choice of the implant type can be done according to the patient's personal needs, the surgeon's experience, and the patient anatomy.

Investigation of hearing aid fitting according to the national acoustic laboratories’ prescription for non-linear hearing aids and the desired sensation level methods in Japanese speakers: a crossover-controlled trial

ObjectiveSome studies have directly compared the National Acoustic Laboratories’ prescription for non-linear hearing aids (HAs) version 2 (NAL-NL2) and Desired Sensation Level for non-linear HAs version 5 (DSLv5), although none were performed in Japan. As the Japanese language is a tonal language that has different linguistic characteristics than those of the studied languages, we compared the outcomes of the NAL-NL2 and DSLv5 in hearing-impaired Japanese participants. MethodsA crossover-controlled trial was conducted on 18 first-time HA users with bilateral moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Participants wore HAs adjusted with each prescriptive method for four weeks. The prescriptions were assessed using speech discrimination testing and the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Consequently, participants were asked to select their preferred prescription and determine which was better for “listening to a conversation” and when “noisy.” ResultsThe mean DSLv5 real ear insertion gain for an input level of 65 dB sound pressure level (SPL) was higher than that of the NAL-NL2 at 250 and 500 Hz. The average speech discrimination score was 78 ± 14% at a 65-dB SPL and 75 ± 17% at an 80-dB SPL for the NAL-NL2, and 79 ± 11% at a 65-dB SPL and 77 ± 17% at an 80-dB SPL for the DSLv5. These differences were not significant. No significant differences were observed in APHAB subscale scores between the two prescription methods. Ultimately, 11 (61%) and 7 (39%) participants preferred the NAL-NL2 and DSLv5, respectively, with no significant differences. ConclusionAlthough the gain of the NAL-NL2 is smaller than that of the DSLv5, both had the same hearing effect. Therefore, the NAL-NL2 may be more useful than the DSLv5 in Japanese.

“I do not hear you!”: hearing-impaired cancer patients report their communication experiences

PurposeHearing impairment has a high impact on communication between cancer patients and their oncologists. What is the patient’s perspective on this problem and how can physicians draw lessons from it?MethodsTogether with otorhinolaryngologists and hearing-impaired patients, we developed a questionnaire including the sections: WHO (Five) Well-Being Index (5 items), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as established self-estimation of hearing function (24 items), use of hearing aid (4 items) as well as patients’ experiences (15 items), difficulties (9 items) and wishes (7 items) regarding the communication with physicians. The experiences, difficulties, wishes, and life satisfaction of cancer patients were analyzed between groups based on participants' APHAB scores, well-being and use of hearing aids. A total of 104 cancer survivors (median age 76.5 years, range 32–90 years) were included.ResultsBetween the groups of subjectively hearing-impaired and normal hearing participants, we registered a significant difference in difficulties in conversation, wishes for physician–patient communication and psychological well-being. Depending on participants’ well-being, wishes and difficulties differed. Differences were also found between participants with and without hearing aids in terms of difficulties in conversation, but not in terms of their wishes and well-being. A large proportion of participants classified as subjectively hearing-impaired according to APHAB already had a hearing aid.ConclusionsCancer patients with hearing loss are very restricted in their understanding of given information and hearing aid use cannot completely compensate for this. Consequently, communication guidelines should be considered and specific educational tools need to be developed for these groups.

Comparison of Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) Questionnaires in a Large Cohort of Self-Reported Normal-Hearing Adult Listeners.

The Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) are two most commonly used questionnaires in the audiology clinic to assess an individual's self-perception of their hearing ability. Here, we present the outcomes of these two questionnaires on a large group of self-reported normal hearing adult listeners. A total of 254 self-reported normal-hearing younger and older adults completed the SSQ and the APHAB questionnaire. The younger participants completed the questionnaires through Qualtrics, whereas the older participants completed the questionnaire through Qualtrics and a traditional pen-and-paper method. The younger listeners perceived a higher ability compared to the older adults in all the SSQ subscales (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities) and reported a lesser frequency of the problems in three of the four APHAB subscales (Ease of communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise). There was no significant difference in the frequency of the problems reported in the Aversiveness subscale. Self-reported normal-hearing listeners do not rate their listening ability at the top of the ability scale. Additionally, the large dataset presented here has a potential normative value for the SSQ and the APHAB questionnaires for self-reported normal-hearing adult listeners.

Self-Perception of Hearing Difficulties and Quality of Life in Individuals with Hearing Loss.

Objectives: To characterize the results of the Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA) questionnaires in individuals with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss and compare them with brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs). Methods: There were 26 individuals with mild to moderate bilateral symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss who participated in the study. They were aged between 13 and 59 years old, right-hand preference, of both sexes, and were assigned to one of two groups according to the result of a BAEP test: normal (n = 16) or altered (n = 10). All subjects underwent a brief, cognitive screening battery and answered the SF-36, APHAB, and HHIA self-assessment questionnaires. For analysis of results, descriptive measures and inferential analysis were used. Results: On the SF-36 questionnaire, scores below 80 points were found in both groups, signifying minimal impact in the domains of pain, general health, vitality, and mental health compared to the other domains. The results of the APHAB questionnaire showed worse scores on the environmental noise subscale, and evaluation with the HHIA revealed a perception of severe restriction in participation in daily life activities. In a comparison between the groups, normal or abnormal BAEPs, no significant differences were found for any of the questionnaires. Conclusions: The results of the self-assessment questionnaires indicate that individuals with hearing loss can experience reduced quality of life, with limitations and restrictions for participation in daily living. The use of BAEPs as a criterion for dividing the groups was not effective in isolating the central component in the results of the self-assessment questionnaires.

Bonebridge® bone conduction implant. Hearing outcomes and quality of life in patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss.

The aim of this study was to analyze the hearing outcomes and quality of life in a series of 52 patients affected by conductive or mixed hearing loss and treated with Bonebridge®. 52 of 71 patients implanted with Bonebridge® between October 2012 and January 2022, were included in the study. We compared the air conduction thresholds at the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000Hz, the SRT50% and the World Recognition Score at an intensity of 50dB with and without the implant. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was employed to assess the quality of life of patients. The liminal tone audiometry (free field) pure tone average for air conduction after 6months with the implant was 35.12dB, obtaining a mean gain of 31.83dB. With Bonebridge®, the mean SRT was 34.17dB, whereas before the surgery no patient achieved 50% of correct answers at a sound intensity of 50dB. The world recognition score at 50dB changed from 11% without the implant to 85% with it. We observed one case of implant failure and one case of implant exposure. The APHAB questionnaire showed an improvement after implantation in practically all the subscales. The hearing outcomes and the subjective benefits reported by patients obtained in our study are similar to those published in the literature. Bonebridge® represents an excellent method for the rehabilitation of patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss, showing a low rate of complications.

Speech in Noise With Bilateral Active Bone Conduction Implant for Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss.

To evaluate speech in noise results and subjective benefit in bilateral active bone conduction implant (ABCI) for bilateral mixed hearing loss. Prospective, comparative. Ear, Nose and Throat Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin. Seven patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss. Patients underwent simultaneous or sequential bilateral surgery for ABCI. The speech intelligibility in noise was assessed with the Ita Matrix test in summation, squelch and head shadow settings. First, the tests were performed with one device activated in the ear with lower speech recognition score, then with both devices. Patients filled in an Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire to investigate the hearing aid benefit. When bilateral devices were activated, an improvement of signal-to-noise ratio was observed in all settings. The difference between bilateral and unilateral stimulation is 4.66 dB ( p = 0.016) in the summation, 2.24 dB ( p = 0.047) in the squelch, 7.50 dB ( p = 0.016) in the head shadow setting.Looking at the APHAB global score (GS), patients report lower mean scores, hence less difficulties, when using two devices (GS, 21.9%; standard deviation (SD), 8.28) rather than one (GS, 33.0%; SD, 10.24) ( p = 0.018). In symmetric mixed bilateral hearing loss, rehabilitation with an ABCI fitted bilaterally shows audiologic advantages in speech perception in noise, not only thanks to the summation effect and by reducing head shadow but also by improving the binaural unmasking based on the squelch effect. Audiometric outcomes are confirmed by the GSs obtained in the APHAB questionnaire.

Is a hybrid of online and face-to-face services feasible for audiological rehabilitation post COVID-19? Findings from three public health patients.

BackgroundThe global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has pushed many audiologists to incorporate remote service delivery methods to adhere to mandatory health and safety protocols. The use of tele-audiology for audiological rehabilitation may provide a sustainable, cost-effective modality to suit the existing need, particularly in low-resourced countries.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the feasibility of implementing a hybrid tele-rehabilitation programme in a South African public health context. An online auditory training (AT) programme was used to determine (1) compliance, (2) clinical benefit, (3) participant experience and (4) costs.MethodA convergent mixed methods design with a feasibility approach was utilised. Data collection was done through questionnaires, in-booth assessments, online AT, and face-to-face interviewing. Participants undertook online AT over 4 weeks. For pre- and post-online AT, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), QuickSIN, entrance and exit questionnaires, interviews and a system usability scale were administered.ResultsKey findings of this study included (1) a high compliance rate (84.82%) with minimal clinician contact time at 3 h 25 min over 5–6-weeks; (2) improvement in perceived hearing aid (HA) benefit, and improvement in listening skills; (3) reported positive experiences; and (4) minimal programme costs at an average of R1350.00 per participant.ConclusionThe results showed positive indicators that the use of hybrid tele-rehabilitative strategies may provide a viable alternative to the traditional face-to-face modality. The hybrid approach showed clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, minimal contact time as well as COVID-19 compliance. Further large-scale research is still needed.

Implantation of two generations of Bonebridge after mastoid obliteration with bioactive glass S53P4

PurposeAfter radical surgery for chronic cholesteatoma (CWD mastoidectomy), patients have the option to have the posterior wall of their external auditory canal surgically reconstructed with S53P4 bioactive glass. The procedure eliminates some of the restrictions related to having a postoperative cavity and extends the options for a hearing prosthesis. If classic reconstruction is not possible and a hearing aid is not used, we suggest use of a Bonebridge implant. MethodsThis study describes, over 18 months of follow-up, 16 patients after a two-stage surgical procedure: obliteration of the mastoid cavity with bioactive glass followed by Bonebridge implantation. There were 7 patients who received the first generation implant (BCI 601) and 9 who used the second (BCI 602). Before and after implantation, pure tone audiometry, sound field thresholds, and free-field audiometry were performed. Speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. Subjective assessment of benefits was done using the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. ResultsDuring the observation period, no serious complications were found. The study demonstrated the safety and validity of the procedures and confirmed the safety of using S53P4 bioactive glass in otosurgery (antibacterial effect, nonrecurrence of cholesteatoma, and no effect on the inner ear). The audiological benefits expected from using the Bonebridge implant processor were also confirmed. ConclusionIt is concluded that, after reconstructing the posterior wall of the external auditory canal with bioactive glass, two-stage implantation of a Bonebridge implant in a typical site is a safe solution for patients who have difficult anatomical conditions following their CWD mastoidectomy.

Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study.

The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. Fifteen patients were selected. Pure-Tone Average (PTA) air conduction range of hearing threshold at 500, 1000, and 2000Hz from 15dB HL to 75dB HL. Patients were assigned in three groups according to the hearing aid used: Extended wear, RITE, and CIC. Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with hearing aids, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by hearing aids. No differences were demonstrated in the Matrix sentence test between the groups. A statistically significant difference was present between the "Personal image" of patients with EW and RITE with a p value of 0.01 (better outcome using EW). For the APHAB questionnaire, a significant difference was present in the "Aversiveness" of the patients with EW in comparison to CIC and RITE with a p value of 0.01 (higher aversiveness of sound using EW). In terms of audiological advantage, extended ear hearing aids are similar to RITE and CIC as demonstrated from the Matrix speech reception threshold. The result was confirmed using the APHAB questionnaire. Extended wear devices are better than daily hearing aids concerning the "personal image".

Comparative Analysis of Subjective Satisfaction Between Hearing Aid Users With Insurance Payment and General Payment

Background and Objectives This study aimed to compare subjective satisfaction and functional hearing gain between users of hearing aids with insurance payment (HA with IP) and hearing aids with general payment (HA with GP).Subjects and Method The functional hearing gain and subjective satisfaction of 42 HA with IP and 38 HA with GP were compared after the final fitting, retrospectively. Sound field pure tone and speech audiometry were performed after 4 sessions of hearing aids fitting. Subjective satisfaction was evaluated using the Korean version of abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) and the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA).Results Sound field pure tone thresholds and speech discrimination scores were improved after the final fitting of hearing aids in both HA with IP and HA with GP groups. HA with IP group showed significantly better results in aversiveness of APHAB and the IOI-HA scores than HA with GP group did.Conclusion These results suggest that hearing aids with insurance payment provide considerable benefits and satisfaction, and can be a good alternative for hearing rehabilitation in hearing-impaired patients.

Evaluation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 active bone conductive implant in adults: efficacy and stability of audiological, surgical, and functional outcomes

Purpose(1) To assess the effectiveness and safety of a bone-conduction implant, the Bonebridge BCI 602, in adults with conductive or mixed hearing loss. (2) To investigate whether the Bonebridge BCI 602 is at least as effective as the Bonebridge BCI 601 in such patients.MethodsThe study group included 42 adults who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients underwent Bonebridge BCI 602 implant surgery. Before and after implantation, pure-tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Polish Monosyllabic Word Test. Speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. Subjective assessment of benefits was done using the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire.ResultsThe APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after BCI 602 implantation. Both word recognition in quiet and speech reception threshold in noise were significantly better after BCI 602 implantation and remained stable for at least 12 months. A significant advantage of the device is a reduced time for surgery while maintaining safety. In this study, the mean time for BCI 602 implantation was 28.3 min ± 9.4.ConclusionsThe second-generation Bonebridge BCI 602 implant is an effective hearing rehabilitation device for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Patient satisfaction and audiological results confirm its efficacy and safety. Its new shape and dimensions allow it to be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient or difficult anatomical conditions. The new BCI 602 implant is as effective as its predecessor, the BCI 601.

Self-Rated Benefits of Auditory Performance after Bonebridge Implantation in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss, or Single-Sided Deafness.

The Bonebridge implant can be a satisfactory solution for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL or MHL), or with single-sided deafness (SSD). The aim of the study was to assess patients’ self-reported benefits with the Bonebridge and characterize the relationships between pre-implantation audiometric data, auditory functioning, and satisfaction after implantation. A focus was to see whether different types of hearing loss were associated with particular benefits. The study sample consisted of 81 patients. Procedures comprised pure tone audiometry before implantation, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and a structured interview asking about satisfaction. Statistically significant improvements after implantation were found in all groups (CHL, MHL, SSD) on the APHAB questionnaire. In the structured interview, patients with SSD were the least satisfied. No significant correlation was found between pre-operative air-bone gap and bone conduction thresholds or with APHAB score. Bonebridge implantation is beneficial to patients with CHL or MHL, or with SSD. Assessment of patients for Bonebridge implantation is complex, and audiometric data should be complemented by patient-reported outcomes to provide deeper insight into their individual needs and attitudes.

Analysis of a Cochlear Implant Database: Changes in Tinnitus Prevalence and Distress After Cochlear Implantation.

The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and distress of tinnitus pre- and post-cochlear implantation in patients with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss. In this retrospective study, we included patients from a cochlear implant clinic in Perth, Western Australia. Pre- and post-cochlear implantation data from 300 implant recipients were collected on self-reported presence of tinnitus, tinnitus distress using the Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire (TRQ), hearing-related quality of life using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), and consonant-nucleus vowel-consonant (CNC) word recognition test scores. Retrospectively, patients were grouped into those with or without tinnitus, and the grade of tinnitus distress. The potential factors associated with post-implantation changes in the presence of tinnitus and its distress were evaluated. Tinnitus prevalence was 55.8% pre-operatively and 44.3% post-implantation with a median TRQ score respectively of 12.0 (IQR: 1.0–28.0) and 3.5 (IQR: 0.0–16.2) points. Among the 96 patients experiencing tinnitus pre-implantation, 14.6% patients experienced moderate to catastrophic tinnitus distress pre-implantation compared to 6.3% post-implantation. To conclude, the pre- and post-implantation median TRQ score for the cohort population showed that tinnitus was a “slight” handicap. Tinnitus prevalence and its associated tinnitus distress decreased post-implantation. Patients with tinnitus post-implantation were significantly younger and had less severe pre-implantation hearing loss in the non-implanted ear than patients without tinnitus. Further research is needed to understand the factors influencing changes in tinnitus.

The Bonebridge BCI 602 Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant in Children: Objective and Subjective Benefits.

Background: the Bonebridge hearing implant is an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant suitable for various types of hearing loss. It was first launched in 2012 as the BCI 601, with a newer internal part (BCI 602) released in 2019. With the new size and shape, the BCI 602 can be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient anatomical conditions, especially in patients with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear. Objectives: the purpose of this study is to evaluate the objective and subjective benefits of the new Bonebridge BCI 602 in children who have hearing impairment due to conductive or mixed hearing loss. Safety and effectiveness of the device was assessed. Methods: the study group included 22 children aged 8–18 years (mean age 14.7 years) who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients were implanted unilaterally with the new Bonebridge BCI 602 implant. Pure tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed before and after implantation. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Demenko and Pruszewicz Polish Monosyllabic Word Test, and speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. The subjective assessment of benefits was carried outusing the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Results: after implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 all patients showed a statistically significant improvement in hearing and speech understanding. The mean word recognition score (WRS) changed from 12.1% before implantation to 87.3% after 6 months. Mean speech reception threshold (SRT) before implantation was +4.79 dB SNR and improved to −1.29 dB SNR after 6 months. All patients showed stable postoperative results. The APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after implantation, with a statistically significant improvement in global score. Pre-operative scores (M = 35.7) were significantly worse than post-operative scores at 6 months (M = 25.7). Conclusions: the present study confirms that the Bonebridge BCI 602 is an innovative and effective solution, especially for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss due to anatomical ear defects. The Bonebridge BCI 602 system provides valuable and stable audiological and surgical benefits. Subjective assessment also confirms the effectiveness of the BCI 602. The BCI 602 offers the same amplification as the BCI601, but with a smaller size. The smaller dimensions make it an effective treatment option for a wider group of patients, especially children with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear.

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

Although bone conduction devices (BCDs) have been shown to improve audiological outcomes of patients with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD), their effects on the patients' quality of life (QOL) are unclear. To investigate the association of BCDs on QOL in patients with SSD. Literature search of databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov) from January 1, 1978, to June 24, 2021, was performed. Prospective interventional studies with 10 or more participants with SSD (defined as pure tone average >70 dB hearing loss in the worse hearing ear and ≤30 dB in the better hearing ear) who underwent unilateral BCD implantation and assessment of QOL before and after the intervention using a validated tool were eligible for inclusion. Studies on adults and children were eligible for inclusion. Patients with only conductive, mixed, or bilateral hearing loss were excluded. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Study clinical and demographic characteristics were obtained. Meta-analysis of mean differences in QOL scores before and after the intervention was performed. Study bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute risk of bias tool. The main study outcome was mean change in QOL scores at 6 months after insertion of BCDs. The 3 QOL instruments used in the studies included the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), the Health Utilities Index-3 (HUI-3), and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). The APHAB and the SSQ are the hearing-related QOL measures, whereas the HUI-3 is a generic QOL measure. A total of 486 articles were identified, and 11 studies with 203 patients met the inclusion criteria. Only adult studies met inclusion criteria. Ten of 11 studies were nonrandomized cohort studies. The BCDs assessed were heterogeneous. There was a significant statistical and clinically meaningful improvement in the global APHAB scores (mean change, 15.50; 95% CI, 12.63-18.36; I2 = 0) and the SSQ hearing qualities (mean change, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.46-1.92; I2 = 78.4%), speech (mean change, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.68-2.37; I2 = 0), and spatial hearing (mean change, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.57-2.44; I2 = 81.1%) subscales. There was no significant change detected in the mean HUI-3 scores (mean change, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.10; I2 = 0). The risk of bias was assessed to be low to moderate. These findings suggest that adult patients who receive BCDs may experience improvements in hearing-specific QOL measures but not in generic QOL measures. Prospective QOL studies should be considered in this cohort, particularly for children with SSD.

Differences in Force Levels, Word Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Reception Threshold in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes for a Bone-Anchored Hearing Device Programmed Using Manufacturer First-Fit, Aided Sound-Field Thresholds and Programmed to DSL-BCD Using a Skull Simulator.

Best practice guidelines for verifying fittings of bone-anchored hearing devices (BAHD) recommend using aided sound-field thresholds (ASFT), but express caution regarding the variables impacting obtaining valid and reliable ASFTs.1 Recently, a skull simulator was introduced to facilitate programming BAHD devices in force level (FL) to desired sensation level-bone conduction devices (skull simulator/DSL-BCD)2 3 targets in a hearing aid analyzer. Currently, no evidence is available reporting if differences in measured FL using the manufacturer first-fit (FF) and word recognition in quiet, sentence reception threshold in noise, and subjective outcomes are present for a BAHD programmed using ASFT versus programmed using skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. The aim of this study was to examine if significant differences were present in FL using the FF and word recognition in quiet at 50 and 65 decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL), sentence reception threshold in noise and subjective outcomes using the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB), and speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing (SSQ) between a BAHD fit using ASFT or skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. A double-blind randomized crossover design with 15 adults having unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. All participants were successful users of the Cochlear America Baha 5. Baha Power 5 devices were fit using FF, ASFT, and skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Order of the three fitting strategies was randomly assigned and counter-balanced. No significant differences were found for a BAHD device programmed using ASFT versus skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets for consonant-nucleus-consonant words in quiet at 50 or 65 dB SPL, sentence reception threshold in noise, the APHAB or SSQ. There were, however, significant differences, at primarily 500 to 2,000 Hz in measured FLs between the FF, ASFT, and skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets at 50 and 65 dB SPL. There were no significant differences in subject performance with two speech measures and subjective responses to two questionnaires for BAHD fittings using ASFT versus using skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Differences in FL between the three fitting strategies were present primarily at 500 to 2,000 Hz. Limitations of the study are highlighted along with situations where the skull simulator can play a significantly beneficial role when fitting BAHD devices.

Piezoelectric bone conduction hearing implant Osia® - audiological and quality of life benefits.

<b>Introduction:</b> Nowadays, there are many options to treat hearing-impaired patients: tympanoplastic surgery, hearing aids and a wide range of implantable devices.</br></br> <b>Aim:</b> The aim of this study is to present the mid-term audiological and quality of life benefits after the implantation of Osia®, an active piezoelectric bone conduction hearing implant. </br></br> <b>Material and methods:</b> The state of the tissues in the implanted area, as well as audiological and quality of life results were analyzed at six, nine and twelve months after implantation in a group of four adult patients with bilateral mixed hearing loss (1 after bilateral canal-wall-down mastoidectomy, 2 with chronic simple otitis media and after myringoplasty in the opposite ear, 1 with bilateral otosclerosis and after stapedotomy in the opposite ear). </br></br> <b>Results:</b> No postoperative complications were found in any of the cases. One year after surgery the mean audiological gain in FF PTA4 (pure tone average for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) was 52.2 ± 3.5 dB in comparison to the unaided situation, the mean speech understanding with Osia® in quiet was 90 ± 8.2% for 50 dB SPL, 98.8 ± 2.5% for 65 dB SPL and 100 ± 0% for 80 dB SPL, and the mean speech understanding with Osia® in noise was 37.5% ± 23.6 for 50 dB SPL, 93.8 ± 4.8% for 65 dB SPL and 98.8 ± 2.5% for 80 dB SPL. There was also an evident improvement in the quality of hearing as well as in the quality of life, measured by APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) and SSQ (Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale). </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> The Osia® is an effective treatment option for patients with bilateral mixed hearing loss. The mid-term audiological and quality of life results are excellent, but further observations including bigger groups of patients and a longer follow- -up are required.

Importance of personality and coping expectancy on patient-reported hearing disability, quality of life and distress level: a study of patients referred to an audiology service

PurposeAccording to the World Health Organization (WHO), hearing loss (HL) affects up to 15% of the world’s adult population. Coping and personality are hypothesized to underlie quality of life (QoL) and distress scores. We aimed to study the importance of personality and coping in persons with HL for self-reported hearing disability, QoL, and distress.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was carried out, including one hundred and fifty-eight adults seeking hearing aids. Pure-tone average hearing thresholds (PTA) were determined for each ear. A revised version of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) served as a measure of self-reported hearing disability. Further, the generic part of the European Organization for Research and Treatment (EORTC) QoL questionnaire and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (distress measure) were answered. Levels of neuroticism and the Theoretically Originated Measure of the Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress (TOMCATS) coping expectancy were determined.ResultsHearing disability was determined by PTA (better ear) and level of neuroticism. Distress and QoL were determined by neuroticism and coping.ConclusionMore neuroticism was associated with worse outcome for the variables hearing disability, distress, and QoL. Helplessness and hopelessness were associated with worse hearing disability, increased distress, and lowered QoL. Patient reported hearing disability was also associated with PTA (better ear). There is a need to investigate further the associations between hearing disability and QoL to psychosocial parameters.

A New Active Osseointegrated Implant System in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness

Objective: The Cochlear™ Osia® System (Osia) is an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant system intended for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss but can also be used in cases of single-sided deafness (SSD) for the contralateral routing of signal (CROS). The Osia implant is placed subcutaneously under the intact skin behind the ear with the piezoelectric actuator connected to an osseointegrated BI300 implant – a titanium screw used for a 2-stage Baha surgery – on the mastoid. The external processor is magnetically attached to the subcutaneous implant receiver coil. As the Osia has recently been CE certified and is new on the market, with limited patient outcome data for SSD available, the objective of this study was the evaluation of surgical procedure, audiological results, and patient satisfaction for the Osia in SSD patients. Study Design: In a prospective, monocentric clinical observation study, 6 patients (18 years of age or older) with SSD and bone conduction thresholds pure tone average 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz ≤25 dB HL on the contralateral side were implanted with an Osia. Analysis of clinical outcome data with respect to surgical technique, adverse events, audiological measurement, and subjective benefit for SSD patients was conducted. Audiological measurements performed included hearing thresholds, sound field thresholds, word recognition scores (WRS; in %) in quiet, and speech recognition thresholds in noise (in dB SNR). All tests were performed unaided and aided with the Osia. The subjective benefit with the Osia was determined by using 2 questionnaires; the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness (BBSSD). Results: Preliminary results indicate a straightforward surgical procedure with a low rate of complications and an improvement in speech perception in quiet, listening performance in everyday situations and patient satisfaction. However, in one of 6 subjects, a revision surgery had to be performed. Conclusion: Provided that SSD patients are open for CROS hearing, they can benefit from the Osia by reduced head shadow effects and better speech recognition. Special caution should be given to the skin at the site of implantation to avoid complications.