D Siau1, B Dhillon2, R Andrews3, K M J Green4. 1. Department of Otolaryngology,Royal Preston Hospital,UK. 2. Department of Otolaryngology,Pinderfields General Hospital,Wakefield,UK. 3. Department of Audiology,Manchester Royal Infirmary,UK. 4. Department of Otolaryngology,Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust,University of Manchester,Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre,UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to report the bone-anchored hearing aid uptake and the reasons for their rejection by unilateral sensorineural deafness patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of 90 consecutive unilateral sensorineural deafness patients referred to the Greater Manchester Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Programme between September 2008 and August 2011 was performed. RESULTS: In all, 79 (87.8 per cent) were deemed audiologically suitable: 24 (30.3 per cent) eventually had a bone-anchored hearing aid implanted and 55 (69.6 per cent) patients declined. Of those who declined, 26 (47.3 per cent) cited perceived limited benefits, 18 (32.7 per cent) cited reservations regarding surgery, 13 (23.6 per cent) preferred a wireless contralateral routing of sound device and 12 (21.8 per cent) cited cosmetic reasons. In all, 32 (40.5 per cent) suitable patients eventually chose the wireless contralateral routing of sound device. CONCLUSION: The uptake rate was 30 per cent for audiologically suitable patients. Almost half of suitable patients did not perceive a sufficient benefit to proceed to device implantation and a significant proportion rejected it. It is therefore important that clinicians do not to rush to implant all unilateral sensorineural hearing loss patients with a bone-anchored hearing aid.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to report the bone-anchored hearing aid uptake and the reasons for their rejection by unilateral sensorineural deafnesspatients. METHODS: A retrospective review of 90 consecutive unilateral sensorineural deafnesspatients referred to the Greater Manchester Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Programme between September 2008 and August 2011 was performed. RESULTS: In all, 79 (87.8 per cent) were deemed audiologically suitable: 24 (30.3 per cent) eventually had a bone-anchored hearing aid implanted and 55 (69.6 per cent) patients declined. Of those who declined, 26 (47.3 per cent) cited perceived limited benefits, 18 (32.7 per cent) cited reservations regarding surgery, 13 (23.6 per cent) preferred a wireless contralateral routing of sound device and 12 (21.8 per cent) cited cosmetic reasons. In all, 32 (40.5 per cent) suitable patients eventually chose the wireless contralateral routing of sound device. CONCLUSION: The uptake rate was 30 per cent for audiologically suitable patients. Almost half of suitable patients did not perceive a sufficient benefit to proceed to device implantation and a significant proportion rejected it. It is therefore important that clinicians do not to rush to implant all unilateral sensorineural hearing losspatients with a bone-anchored hearing aid.
Authors: Martijn J H Agterberg; Ad F M Snik; Rens M G Van de Goor; Myrthe K S Hol; A John Van Opstal Journal: Hear Res Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Tim G A Calon; Marc van Hoof; Herbert van den Berge; Arthur J G de Bruijn; Joost van Tongeren; Janny R Hof; Jan Wouter Brunings; Sofia Jonhede; Lucien J C Anteunis; Miranda Janssen; Manuela A Joore; Marcus Holmberg; Martin L Johansson; Robert J Stokroos Journal: Trials Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Deborah Vickers; Angela Canas; Aneeka Degun; John Briggs; Mina Bingham; Joseph Toner; Huw Cooper; Sarah Rogers; Stacey Cooper; Richard Irving; Patrick Spielman; Samantha Batty; Stephen Jones; Abi Asher; Mark Chung; Neil Donnelly; Anna Skibinska; Robert Gardner; Chris Raine; Rachel Andrew; Kevin Green; Hashmat Ghulam; Terry Nunn; Dan Jiang; Severin Fürhapter; Michael Urban; Kate Hanvey; Sarah Flynn; David Lovegrove; Shakeel Saeed Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2018-03-15