Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-26T14:00:22.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2015

D Siau ,
B Dhillon ,
R Andrews  and
K M J Green
D Siau*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Preston Hospital, UK
B Dhillon
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Pinderfields General Hospital, Wakefield, UK
R Andrews
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK
K M J Green
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr D Siau, 31 Merchant Quay, Salford M50 3XF, UK Fax: +441612915332 E-mail: bdsiau@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Hearing AidsAdultProstheses and ImplantsHearing Loss, Unilateral

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 4 , April 2015 , pp. 321 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

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

References

1Snik, A, Mylanus, E, Proops, D, Wolfaardt, J, Hodgetts, W, Somers, T et al. Consensus statements on the BAHA system: Where do we stand at present? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2005;195:2–12Google Scholar
2Tjellström, A, Håkansson, B, Granström, G. Bone-anchored hearing aids: current status in adults and children. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2001;34:337–64Google Scholar
3Tjellström, A, Granström, G. Long-term follow-up with the bone anchored hearing aid: A review of the first 100 patients between 1977 and 1985. Ear Nose Throat J 1994;73:112–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Tjellström, A. Osseointegrated systems and their applications in the head and neck. Adv Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;3:39–70Google Scholar
5Wazen, JJ, Spitzer, JB, Ghossaini, SN, Fayad, JN, Niparko, JK, Cox, K et al. Transcranial contralateral cochlear stimulation in unilateral deafness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:248–54Google Scholar
6Hol, MK, Bosman, AJ, Snik, AF, Mylanus, EA, Cremer, CW. Bone-anchored hearing aids in unilateral inner ear deafness: an evaluation of audiometric and patient outcome measurements. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:999–1006Google Scholar
7Schroder, SA, Ravn, T, Bonding, P. BAHA in single-sided deafness: patient compliance and subjective benefit. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:404–8Google Scholar
8Proops, D. The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: surgical methods and complications. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110(suppl 21):7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Tjellström, A, Granström, G. A single stage technique for the BAHA. In: Book of Abstracts, 3rd International Winter Seminar on Implants in Craniofacial Rehabilitation and Audiology. Gothenburg: Selva Val Gardena Biomaterials Club, University of Gothenburg, 1993;45Google Scholar
10Tjellström, 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
11Kohan, D, Morris, LG, Romo, T. Single-stage BAHA implantation in adults and children: is it safe? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138:662–6Google Scholar
12CochlearTM BAHA® BI300 Implant System. Surgery Guide: A Bone Conduction Hearing Solution. Mölnlycke: Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions, 2010;13–21Google Scholar
13Hultcrantz, M. Outcome of the bone-anchored hearing aid procedure without skin thinning: a prospective clinical trial. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1134–9Google Scholar
14Faber, HT, Dun, CA, Nelissen, RC, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW, Hol, MK. Bone-anchored hearing implant loading at 3 weeks: stability and tolerability after 6 months. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:104–10Google Scholar
15Vaneecloo, FM, Hanson, JN, Laroche, C, Vincent, C, Dehaussy, J. Prosthetic rehabilitation of unilateral anakusis. Study with stereoaudiometry. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 2000;117:410–7Google Scholar
16Vaneecloo, FM, Ruzza, I, Hanson, JN, Gerard, T, Dehaussy, J, Cory, M et al. The monoaural pseudo-stereophonic hearing aid (BAHA) in unilateral total deafness: a study of 29 patients. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2001;122:343–50Google Scholar
17Wazen, JJ, Young, DL, Farrugia, MC, Chandrasekhar, SS, Ghossaini, SN, Borik, J et al. Successes and complications of the BAHA system. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1115–9Google Scholar
18Kompis, M, Pfiffner, F, Krebs, M, Caversaccio, MD. Factors influencing the decision for BAHA in unilateral deafness: the Bern benefit in single-sided deafness questionnaire. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;71:103–11Google Scholar
19Newman, CW, Sandridge, SA, Wodzisz, LM. Longitudinal benefit from and satisfaction with the BAHA system for patients with acquired unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1123–31Google Scholar
20Hol, M, Kunst, SJW, Snik, AFM, Cremers, CW. Pilot study on the effectiveness of the conventional CROS, the transcranial CROS and the BAHA transcranial CROS in adults with unilateral inner ear deafness. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:889–96Google Scholar
21Andersen, HT, Schroder, SA, Bonding, P. Unilateral deafness after acoustic neuroma surgery: subjective hearing handicap and the effect of the bones-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:809–14Google Scholar
22van Wieringen, A, De Voecht, K, Bosman, AJ, Wouters, J. Functional benefit of the bone-anchored hearing aid with different auditory profiles: objective and subjective measures. Clin Otolaryngol 2011;36:114–120Google Scholar
23Tringali, S, Grayeli, AB, Bouccara, D, Sterkers, O, Chardon, S, Nartin, C et al. A survey of satisfaction and use among patients fitted with a BAHA. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1461–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Arndt, S, Aschendorff, A, Laszig, R, Beck, R, Schild, C, Kroeger, S et al. Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:39–47Google Scholar