Abbreviated Profile Of Hearing Aid Benefit Research Articles

Results of Active Middle Ear Implantation in Patients With Mixed Hearing Loss After Middle Ear Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study (the ROMEO Study).

ObjectivesThis study was conducted to evaluate the user satisfaction, efficacy, and safety of round window (RW) vibroplasty using the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with persistent mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy.Methods The study included 27 patients (mean age, 58.7 years; age range, 28–76 years; 11 men and 16 women) with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy from 15 tertiary referral centers in Korea. The VSB was implanted at the RW. The Korean translation of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire and the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction as the primary outcome. The secondary outcome measures were audiological test results and complication rates.ResultsThe mean scores for ease of communication (61.3% to 29.7% to 30.2%), reverberation (62.1% to 43.1% to 37.4%), and background noise (63.3% to 37.7% to 34.3%) subscales of the APHAB questionnaire significantly decreased after VSB surgery. The mean K-IOI-HA scores at 3 and 6 months after surgery were significantly higher than the mean preoperative score (18.6 to 27.2 to 28.1). The postoperative VSB-aided thresholds were significantly lower than the preoperative unaided and hearing aid (HA)-aided thresholds. There was no significant difference between preoperative unaided, preoperative HA-aided, and postoperative VSB-aided maximum phonetically balanced word-recognition scores. None of the 27 patients experienced a change in postoperative bone conduction pure tone average. One patient developed temporary facial palsy and two developed surgical wound infections.ConclusionRW vibroplasty resulted in improved satisfaction and audiological test results in patients with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy, and the complication rate was tolerable.

Bone-Anchored and Closed Skin Bonebridge Implant in Adults: Hearing Performances and Quality of Life

Introduction: Bonebridge^® is a novel active bone-anchored hearing implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ease of implantation, the hearing performances, and the patient-reported benefit. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study of 24 consecutive adult patients implanted for a mixed hearing loss (13 chronic otitis media (COM) and 11 other aetiologies). Twenty-one implants were placed in the retrosigmoid position and 3 in the mastoid. Audiometry, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, as well as 5 implant-specific questions (analogue visual scale [AVS] 0–10 score), was administered. Results: Surgery lasted 73 ± 29.7 min on average. No major complication occurred. All patients were users at the last follow-up visit (median: 9-month range: 3–25). The average prosthetic gain was similar in COM and other aetiologies (43 ± 4.8 dB and 50 ± 7.2, respectively, not significant, Wilcoxon test). Bone-conduction thresholds were not deteriorated by surgery (Kruskal-Wallis test, not significant). APHAB scores improved in all categories except aversiveness (global score 45 ± 7.0% in COM and 32 ± 10.2% in others, not significant, and Wilcoxon test). Local pain (AVS: 3.23 ± 3.2, n = 16) and manipulation difficulties (3.1 ± 3.69) were low. The device was considered aesthetic (8.3 ± 2.49). Perfectible autonomy (5.0 ± 2.8) and difficulties wearing the implant during sport or at work (5.1 ± 3.47) were the weakest points. Conclusions: BoneBridge^® implant provides reproducible results for the rehabilitation of mixed hearing losses and unilateral hearing loss.

Psychosocial outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment: An overview of the relevant literature

Objective To identify the psychosocial assessments utilized with individuals with conductive and/or mixed hearing loss as part of a broader effort by the Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (AURONET) group to develop a core set of patient-centred outcome measures. Design A review of articles published between 2006 and 2016 was completed. Included studies had more than three adult participants, were available in English, and reported a psychosocial outcome from any treatment of mixed and/or conductive hearing loss. Study sample Sixty-six articles from seven databases. Results Sixty-six articles met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Within this set, 15 unique psychosocial or patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) were identified, with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) being the most frequently dispensed. Five of the fifteen were only administered in one study. In-house questionnaires (IHQs) were reported in 19 articles. Conclusions Only 66 (22%) of the 300 articles with outcomes contained a PRO. Some of the mostly frequently employed PROs (e.g., APHAB) were judged to include only social items and no psychological items. Lack of PRO standardization and the use of IHQs make psychosocial comparisons across treatments in this population difficult for patients, clinicians and stakeholders.

Prospective study on health-related quality of life in patients before and after cochlear implantation

PurposeAssessing cochlear implant (CI)-associated patient outcomes is a focus of implant research. Most studies have analyzed outcomes retrospectively with low patient numbers and few measurement time points. In addition, standardized CI-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments have not been used. To address this, we prospectively assessed HRQoL in patients before and after implantation.MethodsWe assessed HRQoL using the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), Hearing Participation Scale (HPS), and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in 100 deaf or severely hearing-impaired patients (57 unilaterally deaf and 43 bilaterally deaf) before and 3, 6, and 12 months after cochlear implantation. We compared the results of unilaterally and bilaterally hearing-impaired patients and patients with or without a hearing aid. Principal component (PCA) and exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were also conducted.ResultsThe NCIQ measured improvements in all 6 domains after CI and correlated well with other QoL instruments. The PCA revealed that the NCIQ can be better explained by physical, physical advanced, and socio-psychological components. The APHAB score ameliorated over time, except for the background noise domain. The overall HPS score improved over time, but the hearing handicap subscore significantly decreased. Sociodemographic influences on the questionnaire scores were relatively weak.ConclusionAssessing HRQoL is essential for quantifying the patient outcome after CI. NCIQ scores in our patient cohort showed improved HRQoL in all domains and we recommend that the NCIQ be used as a first-line questionnaire for assessing QoL in hearing-impaired patients after CI.

Long term results and evaluation of device satisfaction in patients used the vibrant sound bridge (VSB)

Background Patients' satisfaction with the device is as important as the audiological gains in patients using these devices. Objective In this study, we aimed to evaluate the hearing aid satisfaction of individuals using The Vibrant Sound Bridge (VSB) (Vibrant Med-El, Innsbruck, Austria) and to compare this result with audiologic results ​​with and without devices. Material and methods Patients who were using VSB were included in the study. Preoperative and postoperative pure tone averages and demographic datas of the patients to be included in the study were recorded. A shortened version of Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, was used to evaluate patients’ device satisfaction. Results Fifteen patients with VSB were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 9.13 years. The preoperative air conduction threshold and the air-bone gap in all frequencies were significantly higher than postoperative values (p < .05). The functional gain was found as 28 dB. In the APHAB questionnaire, there was a significant difference between total score results and EC, BN, RV subscales in the patients using the device (p < .01). Conclusion and significance Patients with VSB give satisfactory results in auditory gains. In particular, good indication and long-term use of the device increases the suitability and satisfaction of the patients.

The effect of tinnitus on hearing-related quality of life outcomes in adult cochlear implant recipients

Objective To describe the effect of tinnitus distress on the hearing-related quality of life (QoL) outcomes over time in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Design A retrospective, longitudinal study of adult CI recipients was conducted. Hearing-related QoL and tinnitus distress were assessed using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire (TRQ) preoperatively and at 6-months, 12-months and >24-month postoperatively. The association between tinnitus distress and hearing-related QoL outcomes over time was investigated. Furthermore, 13 potential predictive factors were identified from the retrospective dataset. Multiple regression analyses were performed to identify variables that influence hearing-related QoL outcomes over time. Study sample The study sample included 210 adult (≥18 years) CI recipients implanted between 2001 and 2017. Results Lower tinnitus distress and younger age at implantation were significant predictors of better hearing-related QoL in adult CI recipients. A significant reduction in tinnitus distress up to two years post-implantation was found, as well as greater tinnitus distress correlating with poorer hearing-related QoL outcomes. Conclusion Tinnitus distress negatively affects the hearing-related QoL outcomes of adult CI recipients. Tinnitus distress and age at implantation were found to be significant predictors of hearing-related QoL when controlling for other predictive factors.

Clinical Application and Psychometric Properties of a Swedish Translation of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit.

The impact of hearing loss on the individual and his/her everyday life can be assessed using questionnaires with the purpose to improve rehabilitation quality. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) can be used to evaluate disability in everyday life associated with hearing loss. Previous studies have examined APHAB outcomes in sensorineural hearing loss and we do not know whether the type of hearing loss influence questionnaire outcomes. The purpose was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a Swedish translation of the APHAB and the influence of demographic variables on the outcome in a clinical sample. A descriptive, cross-sectional study in a clinical sample. Forty-eight participants with no hearing aid experience seeking audiological rehabilitation for the first time. These participants represented different degrees of hearing loss and three types of hearing loss: monaural mixed, binaural mixed, and binaural sensorineural hearing loss. Pure-tone audiometry was conducted and the participants completed the unaided APHAB during their first appointment at the clinic. Psychometric properties of the questionnaire were examined and the influence of age, gender, type of hearing loss, and degree of hearing loss on APHAB scores were studied. The psychometric properties indicate high test-retest reliability but there seems to be some potential issues with the properties of the reverberation (RV) subscale. The items from the RV subscale failed to load as a separate component and the internal consistency of the subscale improved by removing four items (items 1, 9, 11, and 16). With few exceptions, APHAB scores were not influenced by age, gender, or type of hearing loss. APHAB scores were generally influenced by degree of hearing loss in both the best and the worst ear. This Swedish version of the APHAB can be additionally improved by addressing the inconsistencies found in the RV subscale by rephrasing or removing some items. The degree of hearing loss has some influence on questionnaire outcomes but not age, gender, and type of hearing loss.

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial exploring the efficacy of frequency lowering hearing aids in patients with high-frequency hearing loss

ObjectiveWhether linear frequency transposition (LFT) assists individuals with hearing difficulties has been studied for years, but no reliable comparison between LFT hearing aids (HAs) and conventional compression-type HAs has been conducted. Herein, we report on the first, relevant, double-blind, randomized controlled trial on this topic using a large sample size. We compared the efficacies of LFT HAs to those of compression-type HAs in patients with high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL); we also reviewed the literature. MethodsA total of 103 patients were randomized into three groups: conventional HAs featuring wide dynamic range compression (control group); HAs featuring LFT (LFT group); and HAs employing both LFT and wide dynamic range compression of high frequencies (combined group). Pure tone averages (PTAs), speech recognition thresholds (SRTs), word recognition scores (WRSs), and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) inventories were assessed at the initial visit and after 3 months of HA use. Subject preferences in terms of continued use of their HAs were also evaluated. ResultsThe PTA, SRT, and WRS scores significantly improved in all three groups. No significant among-group differences were evident. The APHAB score significantly improved only in the control group; HA future-use preference was also highest in this group. ConclusionLFT did not provide an additional benefit for subjects with HFHL over conventional amplification and users preferred conventional HAs featuring wide dynamic range compression.

Audiological and subjective outcomes of 100 implanted transcutaneous bone conduction devices and preoperative bone conduction hearing aids in patients with bilateral microtia-atresia

Background: Bonebridge (BB) and bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA) are effective in patients with bilateral congenital microtia-atresia (CMA).Objectives: To investigate and compare the outcomes of these devices in a large sample size.Materials and methods: This single center prospective study involved 100 patients with bilateral CMA who were implanted with BBs and used BCHAs before implantation. Sound field threshold (SFT), speech reception thresholds (SRTs) and word recognition scores (WRSs) were compared between unaided, BCHA used and implanted patients. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to evaluate subjective satisfaction.Results: Compared to unaided condition, the SFT, WRS and SRT of BCHA and BB were significantly improved. With BCHA or BB, the three subscale scores of the APHAB (ease of communication, background noise and reverberation) significantly reduced. However, the aversiveness subscale scored significantly higher than unaided condition. All outcomes were better in BB condition than BCHA.Conclusions: BB or BCHA use can be considered as effective methods to improve audiological outcomes and subjective satisfaction. Although not as good as BB, BCHA use is critical for improving hearing in the early period of language and auditory pathway development before the skull is suitable for BB implantation.

Audiological outcome measures with the BONEBRIDGE transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: impact of noise, reverberation and signal processing features

Objective: To assess the performance of an active transcutaneous implantable-bone conduction device (TI-BCD), and to evaluate the benefit of device digital signal processing (DSP) features in challenging listening environments.Design: Participants were tested at 1- and 3-month post-activation of the TI-BCD. At each session, aided and unaided phoneme perception was assessed using the Ling-6 test. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) and quality ratings of speech and music samples were collected in noisy and reverberant environments, with and without the DSP features. Self-assessment of the device performance was obtained using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire.Study sample: Six adults with conductive or mixed hearing loss.Results: Average SRTs were 2.9 and 12.3 dB in low and high reverberation environments, respectively, which improved to −1.7 and 8.7 dB, respectively with the DSP features. In addition, speech quality ratings improved by 23 points with the DSP features when averaged across all environmental conditions. Improvement scores on APHAB scales revealed a statistically significant aided benefit.Conclusions: Noise and reverberation significantly impacted speech recognition performance and perceived sound quality. DSP features (directional microphone processing and adaptive noise reduction) significantly enhanced subjects’ performance in these challenging listening environments.

SŁUCHOWE IMPLANTY PNIOWE JAKO SZANSA NA POPRAWĘ SŁYSZENIA I REDUKCJĘ SZUMÓW USZNYCH – RETROSPEKTYWNA ANALIZA CZTERECH PRZYPADKÓW

BackgroundAuditory brainstem implantation (ABI) is a modern method of treating hearing impairment, directed especially to patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2). One of the co-occurring symptoms in these patients is tinnitus; however, little is known about its prevalence and severity. This study evaluated the self-reported hearing ability, hearing-related quality of life, and tinnitus severity in 4 adult ABI users.Material and MethodsThe study was a retrospective design. A series of 6 patients who underwent ABI in a single tertiary referral center were asked to fill in two sets of questionnaires referring to their pre- and postoperative experiences. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to evaluate self-perceived hearing ability and Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) to assessResultsOf the 6 patients who initially agreed to participate, 4 returned questionnaires. Based on the self-reported results, it was found that each patient noticed an improvement in hearing ability (mean improvement in APHAB score of M = 25; SD = 27), which was greatest in background noise conditions. A considerable improvement was also noted in the patients’ hearing-related quality of life (mean improvement in NCIQ score of M = 38; SD = 13), which was most pronounced for basic and advanced sound perception. Tinnitus disappeared completely in two patients and was reduced in one patient (mean improvement in THI score for these patients of M = 25; SD = 21). An increase in tinnitus severity from 26 to 84 points in THI was observed in the remaining patient, who had the greatest intensity of NF2 symptoms in the postoperative period and reported the smallest benefits with ABI.ConclusionsBrainstem implantation has the potential to improve self-reported hearing ability, hearing-related quality of life, and reduce tinnitus in NF2 patients. However, more prospective studies are needed to confirm and further explore this potential.

Cochlear implant in patients with single sided deafness: hearing results and communicative benefits

Objective: Evaluate auditory results and communicative benefits in adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) treated with cochlear implantation.Study Design: Observational descriptive case series.Setting: Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá.Patients: Ten patients with profound post-lingual SSD were treated with cochlear implantation between January 2011 and March 2016. Two patients were excluded because of incomplete follow-up.Interventions: Medical records included demographic information, pre and post-operative audiometric results, and binaural and monoaural speech discrimination tests in three sound-in-noise configurationswith the cochlear implant turned on and off, respectively. Subjective improvement was evaluated using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ-B).Main Outcome Measures: Pre and post-operative audiometric and speech discrimination results, post-operative binaural and monoaural speech discrimination in noise results, and APHAB and SSQ-B questionnaire results.Results: Significant improvement in speech discrimination in a noisy environment was found when the noise and signal were presented from the front, and when the signal was presented to the implanted ear and the noise to the healthy ear. SSQ-B questionnaire showed improvement in all subscales, while APHAB showed improvement in all subscales except sound aversion.Conclusion: Patients with SSD showed improvement regarding communication skills and sound discrimination in a noisy environment.

The Effects of Extended Input Dynamic Range on Laboratory and Field-Trial Evaluations in Adult Hearing Aid Users

Digital hearing aids using a 16-bit analog-to-digital converter (ADC) provide a 96-dB input dynamic range. The level at which the ADC peak clips and distorts input signals ranges between 95 and 105 dB SPL. Recent research evaluated the effect of extending the input dynamic range in a commercially available hearing aid. Although the results were promising, several limitations were noted by the authors. Laboratory testing was conducted using recordings from hearing aids set for a flat 50-dB loss; however, field testing was conducted with hearing aids fitted for their hearing loss. In addition, participants rarely encountered input levels of sufficient intensity to adequately test the feature and were unable to directly compare aids with and without extended input dynamic range (EIDR) under identical conditions. The effects of EIDR under realistic and repeatable test conditions both within and outside the laboratory setting were evaluated. A repeated measures design was used. The experiment was single-blinded. Twenty adults (14 males and six females) between the ages of 30 and 71 years (average age 62 years) who were experienced hearing aid users participated. Each participant was fit with Oticon Opn hearing instruments binaurally using the National Acoustics Laboratory-Nonlinear 1 fitting strategy. Participants completed a two-week trial period using hearing aids with EIDR and a two-week trial period without EIDR. The initial EIDR condition trial period was counterbalanced. After each trial, laboratory evaluations were obtained at 85 dBC using the Connected Speech Test, the Hearing in Noise Test, and the acceptable noise level (ANL). Satisfaction ratings were conducted at 85 dBC using speech in quiet and in noise as well as music. Field-trial evaluations were obtained using the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Satisfaction ratings were also conducted in the field at 85 dBC using speech and music. After the study, each participant indicated which trial period they preferred overall. Repeated measures analysis of variances were conducted to assess listener performance. Pairwise comparisons were then completed for significant main effects. In the laboratory, results did not reveal significant differences between EIDR conditions on any speech perception in noise test or any satisfaction rating measurement. In the field, results did not reveal significant differences between the EIDR conditions on the APHAB or on any of the satisfaction rating measurements. Nine participants (45%) preferred the EIDR condition. Fifteen participants (75%) indicated that speech clarity was the most important factor in determining the overall preference. Sixteen participants (80%) preferred the EIDR condition that resulted in the lower ANL. The use of EIDR in hearing aids within and outside the laboratory under realistic and repeatable test conditions did not positively or negatively impact performance or preference. Results disagreed with previous findings obtained in the laboratory that suggested EIDR improved performance; however, results agreed with previous findings obtained in the field. Future research may consider the effect of hearing aid experience, input level, and noise acceptance on potential benefit with EIDR.

Everyday relevance of APHAB questions : Influence on answer frequency

The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire measures subjective hearing impairment in different situations. Recently, asurvey demonstrated that some APHAB questions were answered more rarely than others. This study aims to evaluate the everyday relevance of each APHAB question and investigate whether this relevance for daily life influences answer frequency. Between July 2016 and November 2017, 517hearing impaired patients from 11ENT practices in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, were evaluated using the APHAB. In parallel, the everyday relevance of each APHAB question for the subjects was assessed on afour-step scale (often/sometimes/rarely/never). The answers were listed in across table and statistically analyzed. The average age of all subjects was 67.4years (±14.0years); 45.3% were female and 54.7% were male. One APHAB question (no.21) was answered noticeably less often than the others. Overall, five types of distribution for the everyday relevance of APHAB questions could be determined. Using the χ2-test, no correlation between the frequency of answers and their everyday relevance could be detected (p < 0.001). No correlation between everyday relevance and answer frequency was detected. However, the five types of distribution could be used for an individual interpretation of single APHAB answers. In the future, apossible influence of everyday relevance on ranking within aspecific APHAB answer should be investigated.

The Bonebridge in Adults with Mixed and Conductive Hearing Loss: Audiological and Quality of Life Outcomes

Background: Considering that hearing loss has a significant impact on social functioning, everyday activity and a person’s emotional state, one of the most important goals of hearing rehabilitation with bone conduction devices is improvement in a patient’s quality of life. Objectives: To measure self-assessed quality of life in patients implanted with the Bonebridge, a bone conduction device. Method: Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with one treatment group. Twenty-one patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss were included, and each individual served as its own control. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to measure patient-reported quality of life before intervention and at 3 and 6 months after activation of the device. At the same time frames, pure-tone audiometry and speech understanding in quiet and in noise were tested. Results: Hearing-specific quality of life increased significantly after intervention and remained stable up to 6 months. Both word recognition in quiet and speech reception threshold in noise were significantly better after 6 months compared to before surgery. Outcomes of aided speech understanding were independent of initial bone conduction thresholds and equally high (word recognition score >75%) across the device’s indication range. Conclusions: The Bonebridge provides not only significant audiological benefit in both speech understanding in quiet and in noise, but also increases self-perceived quality of life in patients suffering from mixed and conductive hearing loss. Together with a very low rate and minor nature of adverse events, it is the state-of-the-art solution for hearing rehabilitation in patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss up to a bone conduction threshold of 45 dB HL.

Satisfaction assessment with Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire on people using hearing aid having Real Ear Measurement (REM) eligibility.

Benefit and satisfaction from hearing aids can be measured in different ways. The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefits and satisfaction of the users from the hearing aids whose fitting are done suitably for hearing loss including ear mould. In this study Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire which consists of 24 questions was used for hearing aid satisfaction assessment. Total 301 people having different type and degree hearing loss participated in the study. The ages of 141 men and 160 women participants were between 18-65 and the average age was 49.11 ± 13.89 year. 187 of the participants had hearing aid in only one ear and the 114 had in both ears. Degree of unilateral hearing loss was 31 slight, 64 moderate, 49 moderately severe, 35 severe and 8 profound. In the ear in which hearing aid was used, there was 134 sensorineural hearingloss, 53 mixture hearing loss. Degree of hearing loss of the people using hearing aid bilaterally was 24 slight, 79 moderate, 54 moderately severe, 48 severe and 23 profound. In 162 ears of people using hearing aid bilaterally there was sensorineural hearing loss and in 53 ears there was mixture hearing loss. In right ear average score of the maximum satisfaction was between 4.23-5.75 and in left ear it was between 4.20-5.72. While the degree of hearing loss was increasing, the average of satisfaction score was decreasing. In terms of using unilateral and bilateral hearing aid, statistically considerable difference was found. In terms of hearing loss statistically considerable difference couldn't be found. Satisfaction of hearing aid is decreasing inversely proportional with increasing of hearing loss (slight- profound degree) While the furthest satisfaction for right and left ear was slight degree, the least satisfaction was observed for profound hearing loss. Aid using satisfaction changes depend on using the aid in the right ear or in the left ear. Using bilateral hearing aid has increased patient satisfaction much more.

The Bonebridge implant in older children and adolescents with mixed or conductive hearing loss: Audiological outcomes

IntroductionFor children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, in whom use of conventional hearing aids is impossible or limited, use of bone conduction devices is recommended. The choice between the available types of devices depends mostly on the degree of hearing loss, age, and anatomical conditions. One device application in children older than 5 years is the Bonebridge implant. The aim of this study is to assess the benefits and safety of this device in children. MethodsThe material was a group of 11 older children and adolescents aged 10–17 years (mean = 14.7, SD = 2.45) with single-sided or bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss, implanted unilaterally with the Bonebridge system at the World Hearing Center in Kajetany near Warsaw between 2014 and 2016. Benefits of the Bonebridge were assessed with warble tone audiometry and word audiometry in free field, as well as an APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire before and after implantation. ResultsHearing tests showed a statistically significant improvement in hearing sensitivity and speech discrimination. Results of the questionnaire confirm the benefits of Bonebridge implantation to the older children in terms of their auditory performance under various acoustic conditions. ConclusionsAt a one-year follow up the Bonebridge system was found to be a safe, efficient, and effective tool for compensating for conductive or mixed hearing loss in older children and adolescents. For good anatomical conditions the Bonebridge implant provides a safe alternative to other popular bone conduction systems.

Models to predict positive and negative effects of cochlear implantation on tinnitus.

ObjectivesThe effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus is heterogeneous: implantation does not always reduce tinnitus and may even worsen tinnitus. Therefore, it is important to know which factors influence the consequences of cochlear implantation for tinnitus. To date, no consensus has been reached regarding the factors that influence tinnitus. This study aimed to create prognostic models, using binary logistic regression analyses to predict positive or negative changes in tinnitus after cochlear implantation.MethodsFor this study we retrospectively sent two questionnaire packages to 117 cochlear implant patients.ResultsIn the binary logistic regression analyses of the responses to the questionnaires, it was not possible to create a significant model to predict a positive effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus. However, a negative effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus was predictable, using a backward stepwise selection method in a model including the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire (THQ) (P < .001, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.529).ConclusionsOur results suggest that the lower the preoperative tinnitus handicap and the preoperative hearing handicap, the higher the chance that cochlear implantation will worsen tinnitus. More research needs to be done, preferable in a big prospective study, to make this model instrumental for clinical decision making and preoperative patient counselling. However, our results might suggest that preoperative THQ and APHAB screening could be meaningful. Especially in patients who are afraid to develop tinnitus or tinnitus worsening as complication of cochlear implantation.Level of Evidence4

Audiological and clinical outcomes of a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: Six-month results from a multicentre study.

To compare the hearing performance of patients with conductive and mild mixed hearing loss and single-sided sensorineural deafness provided with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant (the Baha Attract System) with unaided hearing as well as aided with a sound processor on a softband. Furthermore, to evaluate safety and subjective benefit before and after implantation of the test device. Fifty-four adult patients in five participating centres were enrolled in this prospective study. Baseline data were collected during a pre-operative visit, and after a softband trial, all patients were implanted unilaterally. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 10days, 4, 6, 12weeks and 6months. Free-field hearing thresholds pure-tone average (PTA4 in dB HL; mean threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000Hz; primary outcome measure). Individual free-field hearing thresholds, speech recognition in quiet and in noise, soft tissue status during follow-up and subjective benefit as measured with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and Health Utilities Index (HUI) questionnaires. Implantation of the Baha Attract System resulted in favourable audiological outcomes compared to unaided conditions. On the primary outcome parameter, a statistically significant improvement was observed compared to unaided hearing for the patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss (mean PTA4 difference -20.8dB HL, SD 9.8; P<0.0001) and for the patients with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD) (mean PTA4 difference -21.6dB HL, SD 12.2; P<0.0001). During all audiology tests, the non-test ear was blocked. Statistically significant improvements were also recorded in speech tests in quiet and noise compared to unaided hearing for the conductive/mixed hearing loss group and for speech in quiet in the SSD group. Compared to the pre-operative measurement with softband, no significant differences were recorded in the PTA4 free-field hearing threshold or the other audiological outcomes in either of the groups (P>0.05). Soft tissue-related issues observed during follow-up included numbness, pain/discomfort at the implant site and to a lesser extent pressure-related skin complications. A declining trend was noted in the rate of these complications during follow-up. Approximately 20% of patients reported some degree of numbness and 38% (slight) pain/discomfort at final follow-up of 6months. Good results on the subjective benefit questionnaires were observed, with statistically significant improvements on APHAB and SSQ questionnaires, and on the hearing attribute of HUI3. The Baha Attract System provided a significant improvement in hearing performance and subjective benefit compared to the pre-operative unaided condition (with the non-test ear blocked). Hearing performance of the Baha Attract was similar to a test situation with the same sound processor on a softband. A proportion of the patients reported numbness and pain/discomfort at the implant site during follow-up, especially during the first post-operative weeks. Based on the results of the current multicentre study, the Baha Attract can be considered as a treatment option for patients with the aforementioned hearing losses. Especially in the SSD patients, a careful selection procedure is warranted. Therefore, a pre-operative trial should be part of the decision-making process before fitting a patient with the Baha Attract System.

The influence of time of hearing aid use on auditory perception in various acoustic situations

The assessment of sound perception in hearing aids, especially in the context of benefits that a prosthesis can bring, is a complex issue. The objective parameters of the hearing aids can easily be determined. These parameters, however, do not always have a direct and decisive influence on the subjective assessment of quality of the patient's hearing while using a hearing aid. The paper presents the development of a method for the assessment of auditory perception and the effectiveness of applying hearing aids for hearing-impaired people during a short-term use. The method involves a questionnaire based on the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) assessment questionnaire, a measure of self-reported auditory disability. The study includes additional criteria, such as measuring the number of hours and days of use of hearing aids, the degree of hearing loss and the patient's experience. A web-based application is developed to enable to carry out such an examination from any computer with access...