E A Mylanus1, A F Snik, C W Cremers. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' opinions of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) compared with a conventional hearing aid. DESIGN: Prospective study with two questionnaires. Questionnaire A consisted of questions that compared patients' previous hearing aid with the BAHA. Questionnaire B consisted of questions about the patients' experiences with the hearing aids. PATIENTS: Sixty-five consecutive patients who had used conventional hearing aids. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. INTERVENTION: A percutaneous titanium implant in the temporal bone for the BAHA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Qualitative descriptive results of questionnaire A and difference scores from questionnaire B comparing conventional hearing aids and the BAHA. RESULTS: Patients favored the BAHA to the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid. Patients with BAHA reported a significant improvement in speech recognition in quiet and in noise, in sound quality, and in comfort (P < .01). The results with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous for speech recognition, but all the patients reported a decrease in ear infections. CONCLUSION: The BAHA is a good alternative for the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid if a patient can no longer use an air-conduction hearing aid.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' opinions of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) compared with a conventional hearing aid. DESIGN: Prospective study with two questionnaires. Questionnaire A consisted of questions that compared patients' previous hearing aid with the BAHA. Questionnaire B consisted of questions about the patients' experiences with the hearing aids. PATIENTS: Sixty-five consecutive patients who had used conventional hearing aids. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. INTERVENTION: A percutaneous titanium implant in the temporal bone for the BAHA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Qualitative descriptive results of questionnaire A and difference scores from questionnaire B comparing conventional hearing aids and the BAHA. RESULTS:Patients favored the BAHA to the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid. Patients with BAHA reported a significant improvement in speech recognition in quiet and in noise, in sound quality, and in comfort (P < .01). The results with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous for speech recognition, but all the patients reported a decrease in ear infections. CONCLUSION: The BAHA is a good alternative for the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid if a patient can no longer use an air-conduction hearing aid.