OBJECTIVE: To assess both quality of life (QOL) and hearing outcomes in bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA) users for single sided deafness with 1) less than total hearing loss in the deaf ear, or 2) some degree of hearing loss in the better ear and compare them to traditional candidates. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective comparative cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with a BAHA for single sided deafness were assigned into groups based on hearing thresholds in the deaf ear (> or <90 dBHL) and the control ear (> or <25 dBHL). INTERVENTION: A panel of QOL measures (GBI, HUI Mark 3, and the Outer EAR) and a prospective assessment of hearing including Quick SIN and HINT in quiet and noise, and a localization task. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in QOL, hearing performance in noise, and localization ability. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were tested. Patients with residual hearing in the BAHA ear showed nonsignificant trends toward improved performance in noise localization compared with those without residual hearing. There were no statistically significant differences in QOL between groups. Patients with hearing loss in the control ear had equivalent QOL scores to those with normal hearing in the control ear despite performing worse on speech in noise tasks. CONCLUSION: BAHA patients with hearing loss in the better ear seem to perform worse in noise relative to those without but have equivalent perceived benefit. Residual hearing in the implanted ear may improve performance. A larger sample size is needed to confirm these trends.
OBJECTIVE: To assess both quality of life (QOL) and hearing outcomes in bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA) users for single sided deafness with 1) less than total hearing loss in the deaf ear, or 2) some degree of hearing loss in the better ear and compare them to traditional candidates. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective comparative cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with a BAHA for single sided deafness were assigned into groups based on hearing thresholds in the deaf ear (> or <90 dBHL) and the control ear (> or <25 dBHL). INTERVENTION: A panel of QOL measures (GBI, HUI Mark 3, and the Outer EAR) and a prospective assessment of hearing including Quick SIN and HINT in quiet and noise, and a localization task. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in QOL, hearing performance in noise, and localization ability. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were tested. Patients with residual hearing in the BAHA ear showed nonsignificant trends toward improved performance in noise localization compared with those without residual hearing. There were no statistically significant differences in QOL between groups. Patients with hearing loss in the control ear had equivalent QOL scores to those with normal hearing in the control ear despite performing worse on speech in noise tasks. CONCLUSION: BAHA patients with hearing loss in the better ear seem to perform worse in noise relative to those without but have equivalent perceived benefit. Residual hearing in the implanted ear may improve performance. A larger sample size is needed to confirm these trends.