Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8v9h9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T03:59:18.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do patients report quality of life improvements after fitting of their unilateral bone conducting hearing implant?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2021

S Meghji ,
A Collett ,
I Nunney ,
P Prinsley  and
J Hanif
S Meghji*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
A Collett
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
I Nunney
Affiliation:
Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
P Prinsley
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
J Hanif
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Miss Sheneen Meghji, Department of Otolaryngology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, UK E-mail: Sheneen_m@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The audiological benefits of a bone conducting hearing implant are well documented; however, there is a paucity of literature comparing pre- and post-operative quality of life benefits. This study assessed the quality of life status before and after the device is implanted.

Methods

A prospective study was conducted of all adult bone conducting hearing implants inserted in a teaching hospital between 2012 and 2017. All patients completed the Glasgow Health Status Inventory, a validated quality of life questionnaire, before and three to six months after implantation.

Results

Sixty-two patients received a unilateral bone conducting hearing implant. All scores except the social score improved post-operatively. The paired t-test showed that the differences in the means for the Glasgow Health Status Inventory total, general and physical scores were statistically significant at the 5 per cent level (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

This study, one of the few to assess quality of life pre- and post-implantation, showed a vast improvement in patients’ perceived quality of life from the pre- to the post-operative phase.

Keywords

Hearing LossHearing AidsProstheses And ImplantsQuality Of LifeSurveys And Questionnaires

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 2 , February 2021 , pp. 130 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Miss S Meghji takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented as a poster at the 6th International Congress on Bone Conduction Hearing and Related Technologies (‘OSSEO 2017’), 17–20 May 2017, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

References

Robinson, K, Gatehouse, S, Browning, GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendry, J, Chin, A, Swan, IRC, Akeroyd, MA, Browning, GG. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient-recorded outcome measure. Clin Otolaryngol 2016;41:259–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tjellström, A, Rosenhall, U, Lindstrom, J, Hallen, O, Albrektsson, T, Branemark, I. Five-year experience with skin-penetrating bone-anchored implants in the temporal bone. Acta Otolaryngol 1983;95:568–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruyt, IV, Banga, R, Banerjee, A, Mylanus, EAM, Hol, MKS. Clinical evaluation of a new laser-ablated titanium implant for bone-anchored hearing in 34 patients: 1-year experience. Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:761–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wolf, MJF, Shival, MC, Hol, MKS, Mylanus, EAM, Cremers, CWRJ, Snik, AFM. Benefit and quality of life in older bone-anchored hearing aid users. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:766–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillett, D, Fairley, J, Chandrashaker, T, Bean, A, Gonzalez, J. Bone-anchored hearing aids: results of the first eight years of a programme in a district general hospital, assessed by the Glasgow benefit inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:537–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLarnon, CM, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: comparison of benefit by patient subgroups. Laryngoscope 2004;114:942–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, AL, Dutt, SN, Tziambazis, E, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. Disability, handicap and benefit analysis with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Glasgow hearing aid benefit and difference profiles. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 2002;28:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badran, K, Bunstone, D, Arya, AK, Suryanarayanan, R, Mackinnon, N. Patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a 14-year experience. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:659–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swan, IR, Guy, FH, Akeroyd, MA. Health-related quality of life before and after management in adults referred to otolaryngology: a prospective national study. Clin Otolaryngol 2012;37:35–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mace, AT, Isa, A, Cooke, LD. Patient quality of life with bone-anchored hearing aid: 10-year experience in Glasgow, Scotland. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:964–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkie, M, Chakravarthy, K, Mamais, C, Temple, RH. Osseointegrated hearing implant surgery using a novel hydroxyapatite-coated concave abutment design. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;151:1014–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arunachalam, PS, Kilby, D, Meikle, D, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life assessed by Glasgow benefit inventory. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1260–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allis, TJ, Owen, DB, Chen, BJ, Dwight, T, Moore, GF. Longer length Baha™ abutments decrease wound complications and revision surgery. Laryngoscope 2014;124:989–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calon, TG, van Hoof, M, van den Berge, H, de Bruijn, AJ, van Tongeren, J, Hof, JR et al. Minimally invasive Ponto surgery compared to the linear incision technique without soft tissue reduction for bone conduction hearing implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:540CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husseman, J, Szudek, J, Monksfield, P, Power, D, O'Leary, S, Briggs, R. Simplified bone-anchored hearing aid insertion using a linear incision without soft tissue reduction. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:S33–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roplekar, R, Lim, A, Hussain, SS. Has the use of the linear incision reduced skin complications in bone-anchored hearing aid implantation? J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:541–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Stee, EHH, Strijbos, RM, Bom, SJH, Hol, MKS. Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018;275:1737–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alshehri, H, Alsanosi, A, Majdalawieh, O. Modified Baha punch technique: least invasive, shortest time and no suturing. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;68:80–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van de Berg, R, Stokroos, RJ, Hof, JR, Chenault, MN. Bone-anchored hearing aid: a comparison of surgical techniques. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:129–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, SA, Coelho, DH. Minimally invasive surgery for osseointegrated auditory implants: a comparison of linear versus punch techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;152:1089–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohamad, S, Khan, I, Hey, SY, Musheer, HSS. A systematic review on skin complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in relation to surgical techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:559–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snyder, MC, Moore, GF, Johnson, PJ. The use of full-thickness skin grafts for the skin-abutment interface around bone-anchored hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:255–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mylanus, EA, Snik, AF, Cremers, CW. Patients' opinions of bone-anchored vs conventional hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:421–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjellström, A, Granström, G. One-stage procedure to establish osseointegration: a zero to five years follow-up report. J Laryngol Otol 1995;109:593–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macnamara, M, Phillips, D, Proops, DW. The bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). J Laryngol Otol Suppl 1996;21:38–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NHS England. Clinical Commissioning Policy: Bone conducting hearing implants (BCHIs) for hearing loss (all ages). In: https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2013/05/16041_FINAL.pdf [22 December 2020]Google Scholar
Ho, EC, Monksfield, P, Egan, E, Reid, A, Proops, D. Bilateral bone-anchored hearing aid: impact on quality of life measured with the Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:891–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed