Profile Of Hearing Aid Benefit Research Articles

Hearing loss, depression, and cognition in younger and older adult CI candidates.

Hearing loss in old age is associated with cognitive decline and with depression. Our study aimed to investigate the relationship between hearing loss, cognitive decline, and secondary depressive symptoms in a sample of younger and older cochlear implant candidates with profound to severe hearing loss. This study is part of a larger cohort study designated to provide information on baseline data before CI. Sixty-one cochlear implant candidates with hearing loss from adulthood onwards (>18 years) were enrolled in this study. All had symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss in both ears (four-frequency hearing threshold difference of no more than 20 dB, PTA). Individuals with primary affective disorders, psychosis, below-average intelligence, poor German language skills, visual impairment, and a medical diagnosis with potential impact on cognition (e.g., neurodegenerative diseases,) were excluded. Four-frequency hearing thresholds (dB, PTA, better ear) were collected. Using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, we assessed subjective hearing in noise. Clinical and subclinical depressive symptoms were assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI II). Cognitive status was assessed with a neurocognitive test battery. Our findings revealed a significant negative association between subjective hearing in noise (APHAB subscale "Background Noise") and BDII. However, we did not observe any link between hearing thresholds, depression, and cognition. Additionally, no differences emerged between younger (25-54 years) and older subjects (55-75 years). Unexpectedly, further unplanned analyses unveiled correlations between subjective hearing in quiet environments (APHAB) and cognitive performance [phonemic fluency (Regensburg Word Fluency), cognitive flexibility (TMTB), and nonverbal episodic memory (Nonverbal Learning Test), as well as subjective hearing of aversive/loud sounds (APHAB)], cognitive performance [semantic word fluency (RWT), and inhibition (Go/Nogo) and depression]. Duration of hearing loss and speech recognition at quiet (Freiburg Monosyllables) were not related to depression and cognitive performance. Impact of hearing loss on mood and cognition appears to be independent, suggesting a relationship with distinct aspects of hearing loss. These results underscore the importance of considering not only conventional audiometric measures like hearing thresholds but also variables related to hearing abilities during verbal communication in everyday life, both in quiet and noisy settings.

Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants.

Patients with acochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for anew speech processor every 6years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades. Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction. The speech processor upgrade resulted in asignificant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dBsignal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, asignificant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006).A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified aproportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry. There was asignificant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only asmall improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.

Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants. German version

Patients with acochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for anew speech processor every 6years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades. Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction. The speech processor upgrade resulted in asignificant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dBsignal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, asignificant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006).A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified aproportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry. There was asignificant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only asmall improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.

Comparison of Active Bone Conduction Hearing Implant Systems in Unilateral and Bilateral Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss.

To assess and compare binaural benefits and subjective satisfaction of active bone conduction implant (BCI) in patients with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with bilateral BCI and patients with monaural conductive hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI. ITA Matrix test was performed both on patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural bone conduction hearing implant (Bonebridge, Med-El) before and after implantation of contralateral bone conduction hearing implant and on patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss before and after implantation of monaural BCI. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was administered to both groups of subjects and the results were compared with each other. Patients of group 1 reported a difference of 4.66 dB in the summation setting compared to 0.79 dB of group 2 (p < 0.05). In the squelch setting, group 1 showed a difference of 2.42 dB compared to 1.53 dB of group 2 (p = 0.85). In the head shadow setting, patients of group 1 reported a difference of 7.5 dB, compared to 4.61 dB of group 2 (p = 0.34). As for the APHAB questionnaire, group 1 reported a mean global score difference of 11.10% while group 2 showed a difference of -4.00%. Bilateral BCI in patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss might show more advantages in terms of sound localisation, speech perception in noise and subjective satisfaction if compared to unilateral BCI fitting in patients affected by unilateral conductive hearing impairment. This may be explained by the different individual transcranial attenuation of each subject, which might lead to different outcomes in terms of binaural hearing achievement. On the other hand, patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI achieved good results in terms of binaural hearing and for this reason, there is no absolute contraindication to implantation in those patients.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Short-term Hearing Aid Use in Patients with Different Degrees of Hearing Loss

The study presents evaluating the effectiveness of the hearing aid fitting process in the short-term use (7 days). The evaluation method consists of a survey based on the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Additional criteria such as a degree of hearing loss, number of hours and days of hearing aid use as well as the user’s experience were also taken into consideration. The outcomes of the benefit obtained from the hearing aid use in various listening environments for 109 hearing aid users are presented, including a degree of their hearing loss. The research study results show that it is possible to obtain relevant and reliable information helpful in assessing the effectiveness of the shortterm (7 days) hearing aid use. The overall percentage of subjects gaining a benefit when communicating in noise is the highest of all the analyzed and the lowest in the environment with reverberation. The statistical analysis performed confirms that in the listening environments in which conversation is held, a subjective indicator determined by averaging benefits for listening situations individually is statistically significant with respect to the degree of hearing loss. Statistically significant differences depending on the degree of hearing loss are also found separately for noisy as well as reverberant environments. However, it should be remembered that this study is limited to three types of hearing loss, i.e. mild, moderate and severe. The acceptance of unpleasant sounds gets the lowest rating. It has also been observed that in the initial period of hearing aid use, the perception of unpleasant sounds has a big influence on the evaluation of hearing improvement.

Hearing Rehabilitation Using Bone Conduction Implants in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness After Vestibular Schwannoma Removal

Background and Objectives Vestibular schwannoma (VS) itself or treatment of VS can cause single-sided deafness (SSD), a unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Patients of SSD experience communication problems, which can be frustrating. For decades, many types of bone conduction implants (BCIs) have been developed and used to treat such hearing problems. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of BAHD surgery to treat SSD patients’ hearing impairment and analysed the complications patients suffer.Subjects and Method A retrospective chart review was conducted on 12 patients who had undergone BCIs, such as Baha Attract, Bonebridge, and Sophono implantation, after removal of VS. From 2016 to 2021, one senior surgeon at a single tertiary hospital performed surgery for SSD rehabilitation. The authors analysed the clinical features, radiologic findings (CT and MRI), hearing tests (pure tone audiogram [PTA], speech audiogram [SA], and Korea hearing in noise test), subjective satisfaction scores (abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit), and surgical outcomes of the patients.Results All patients underwent temporal MRI, temporal bone CT scan, PTA, and SA at least 3 years after VS removal and confirmed no residual tumour or serviceable contralateral hearing at the last follow-up. Among the patients (12), eight received Baha Attract implantation, three received Bonebridge implantation, and one received Sophono implantation. On the average, patients’ ipsilateral hearing outcomes improved by 82.7 dB (from 115.8±9.8 dB to 33.1±9.5 dB).Conclusion There are many methods of hearing rehabilitation in SSD that are used after VS, but BCI seemed to be the most useful treatment.

Audiological benefit, quality of life, and factors associated with functional gain in elderly hearing aid users in a developing country between 2017 and 2020: a pre-post-study

BackgroundSensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is the most common auditory deficit in older adults and may lead to quality-of-life deterioration. However, few studies have been performed in low/middle-income countries, particularly in Latin America. This study aimed to assess the audiological benefit, quality of life, and factors associated with functional gain in elderly hearing aid users in the Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá and UNIMEQ-ORL, two otology referral centers in Colombia.DesignPre-post study that included hearing aid users at the otology consult of the Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá and UNIMEQ-ORL between June 2017 and December 2020. Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaires were applied. Audiometric (0,5 kHz to 4 kHz) and speech audiometry results were collected.ResultsA total of 75 participants (132 ears) were included. The mean age was 70.73 years (SD: 12.66). The median hearing aid use in years was 0.71 (IQR: 0.64–0.90). Mean change in speech audiometry was − 26.53dB (95%CI: -28.09, -24.97; p < 0.001), in functional gain was − 21.75dB (-23.81, -19.68; p < 0.001). The mean changes in the APHAB domains were Ease of Communication: -37.85 (95%CI: -43.01; -32.7), Background Noise: -3.51 (-6.06; -0.95), and Aversiveness of Sounds: -6.9 (-2.04; 11.77). The GBI assessment of quality of life showed improvement in 100% of the population after the use of hearing aids. The number of years of hearing aids use was associated with functional gain.ConclusionThe number of years of hearing aids use may impact on the functional gain in these populations. A significant clinical benefit was found in terms of quality of life, communication, and reverberation related to the use of hearing aids. Access to hearing aids should be granted, and public health strategies are needed to grant the access to hearing rehabilitation in these populations.Trial registrationFundación Santa Fe de Bogotá (Protocol Number: CCEI-12666-2020).

Effectiveness of an Over-the-Counter Self-fitting Hearing Aid Compared With an Audiologist-Fitted Hearing Aid

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent condition, with numerous debilitating consequences when left untreated. However, less than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids became available in October 2022 to improve access and affordability. However, clinical effectiveness studies of available OTC hearing aids using the existing devices in the market are limited. To compare the clinical effectiveness of a self-fitting OTC hearing aid with remote support and a hearing aid fitted using audiologist-fitted best practices. This randomized clinical effectiveness trial was conducted between April 14 and August 29, 2022. Sixty-eight adults with self-perceived mild to moderate hearing loss were recruited and randomly assigned to either the self-fitting or the audiologist-fitted group. Following bilateral hearing aid fitting, participants first completed a 2-week, take-home field trial without any support. Access to fine-tuning for both groups was only available after the 2-week trial. Support and adjustment were provided remotely for the self-fitting group per request and by the audiologist for the audiologist-fitted group. Participants were then reassessed after an additional 4-week take-home trial. A commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid was provided to participants in the self-fitting group who were expected to set up the hearing aids using the commercially supplied instructional material and accompanying smartphone application. In the audiologist-fitted group, audiologists fitted the same hearing aid according to the National Acoustics Laboratories nonlinear version 2 algorithm for prescriptive gain target using real-ear verification with hearing aid use instruction. The primary outcome measure was self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary measures included the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and speech recognition in noise measured using an abbreviated speech-in-noise test and a digits-in-noise test. All measures were completed at baseline and at 2 intervals following hearing aid fitting (2 and 6 weeks). Sixty-four participants were included in the analytic sample (33 men [51.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.1] years), with equal numbers of participants (n = 32) randomized into each group. The groups did not differ significantly in age (effect size r = -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2]) or 4-frequency pure-tone average (effect size r = 0.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4]). After the 2-week field trial, the self-fitting group had an initial advantage compared with the audiologist-fitted group on the self-reported APHAB (Cohen d = -0.5 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0]) and IOI-HA (effect size r = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.0-0.5]) but not speech recognition in noise. At the end of the 6-week trial, no meaningful differences were evident between the groups on any outcome measures. In this randomized clinical effectiveness trial, self-fitting OTC hearing aids with remote support yielded outcomes at 6 weeks post fitting comparable to those of hearing aids fitted using audiologist best practices. These findings suggest that self-fitting OTC hearing aids may provide an effective intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05337748.

Speech Perception in Noise and Sound Localization for Cochlear Implant With Single-Sided Deafness Compared With Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids.

Cochlear implantation (CI) for the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD) is a relatively new treatment modality. Although comparing the effectiveness of CI and contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aids (HAs) is important, very few reports on this topic exist. In this study, objective assessments and subjective assessments were conducted to determine which SSD individuals would prefer CI or CROS HAs. Objective assessments (speech perception and sound localization) and subjective assessments (Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), MOS Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2)) were performed on 87 SSD patients. Of the 87 SSD patients, 33 patients hoped for CROS HAs, and 17 patients hoped for CI. The CI group underwent subjective and objective assessments at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The CROS HAs group underwent objective assessments at 1 month after wearing CROS HAs. After the intervention, the localization ability was significantly improved in the CI group (p < 0.05) with no significant improvement in that of the CROS HAs group (p = 0.48). No significant improvement in speech perception in noise was observed in the CROS (Signal-to-Noise ratio + 10, p = 0.08; SN + 0, p = 0.17); however, a significant improvement in the CI group was observed at 12 months postoperatively. The APHAB subscale "background noise" and SF-36v2 health concepts of role-physical, general health, vitality, role-emotional, and mental health were significantly higher in the CI group. CI was superior to CROS HAs in speech perception in terms of noise and sound localization. Patients with postlingual acute-onset hearing loss and more handicaps and a more positive view of their hearing loss possibly tend to choose CI.

Synchronous remote fine-tuning and follow-up within aural rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial

Objective The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of including synchronous remote fine-tuning and follow-up as a part of the aural rehabilitation process. Design A randomised controlled trial (RCT). Study sample Experienced hearing aid users who were due for renewed aural rehabilitation were randomised to either an intervention group (n = 46) or a control group (n = 49). Both groups underwent all stages of the conventional renewed aural rehabilitation process within our clinics, but the intervention group was also offered remote follow-up visits, including an opportunity for synchronous remote fine-tuning of hearing aids. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults (HHIE/A), the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), and the International Outcome Intervention for Hearing Aid Users (IOI-HA) were used as outcome measures. Results Both groups improved in self-rated hearing difficulties and hearing aid benefits measured with HHIE/A and APHAB. No significant differences were found between the intervention and the control group. Conclusion Including synchronous remote follow-up and fine-tuning as a part of an aural rehabilitation process may effectively complement clinical visits. Additionally, the synchronous remote follow-up has the potential to further develop person-centred care by enabling hearing aid users to identify individual needs directly in an everyday environment.

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.

Comparison of hearing aid fitting effectiveness with audiograms from either user-operated or traditional audiometry in a clinical setting: a study protocol for a blinded non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

IntroductionThere is a worldwide need to enhance the capacity of audiometry testing. The objective of this study is to compare the User-operated Audiometry (UAud) system with traditional audiometry in a...

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.

Impacto da protetização auditiva na qualidade de vida do adulto com deficiência auditiva: revisão de escopo

ABSTRACT Purpose To verify the benefits of hearing aids in the quality of life of adults with hearing loss. Research strategy Scoping review guided by PRISMA recommendations. Selection criteria with the help of the keywords “hearing aids”, “hearing aid”, “cochlear implant”, “speech therapy”, “hearing impairment”, “hearing loss”, “quality of life”, and their respective in English and Spanish in the virtual databases: LILACS, SciELO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Open Grey. Qualitatively analyzed. Results 1,312 records were identified and six articles were selected, with a hearing aided population from 18 to 92 years old, from both genders, cochlear implant and individual sound amplification device users. Questionnaires were used (assessment of expectations of adults/elderly users of hearing aids, International Outcome Inventory For Hearing Aids, Nijmegen Cochlear Implant, Satisfaction, Caregiver Strain Questionnaire, Relative to the Index, World Health Organization Quality of Life-bref, Glasgow Health Status Inventory, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Cochlear Implant Quality of Life and scales (Care Giving Burden Scale), Denver Quantified and visual analog). The results indicated a better quality of life in the domains tested, both in the view of deaf adults and their partners. Conclusion Despite the heterogeneity of the quality of life protocols used in the selected studies, it was possible to verify that hearing aids increase the quality of life of adults with hearing loss.

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.

The Oticon Ponto System in Adults With Severe-to-Profound and Mixed Hearing Loss: Audiologic Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction.

ObjectiveTo measure audiologic outcomes and self-assessed satisfaction with the Ponto system in a group of patients who had severe to profound and mixed hearing loss.Study DesignRetrospective case review.SettingTertiary referral center.PatientsSixteen patients aged 21 to 74 years with severe-to-profound and mixed hearing loss (bone conduction thresholds, ≥45 dB HL).InterventionsPonto implant surgery.Main Outcome Measure(s)Pure-tone audiometry, free-field hearing thresholds, effective gain, word recognition score in quiet, and speech reception threshold (SRT) in noise were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes were collected using the Clinical Global Impression Scale, Glasgow Benefit Inventory, and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Information concerning any medical complications was also gathered.ResultsBoth word recognition score and SRT were significantly better after 12 months compared with before surgery. At normal speech level (65 dB SPL), 12 of 16 users had speech discrimination ≥70%. However, at the 12-month follow-up, the average effective gain was −6.2 dB. In general, the self-report outcomes showed good satisfaction in most patients. Postoperatively, skin complications were noted in six patients, of whom two underwent reoperation. All patients were still using the Ponto after an average observation time of 2.7 years.ConclusionAlthough skin complications were not uncommon, the Ponto system seems to be an effective method of improving hearing performance and provides subjective satisfaction in real-life situations in patients with severe-to-profound and mixed hearing loss. However, considering the significantly increased bone conduction thresholds and the risk of their further deterioration, long-term follow-up is still needed.

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.