Intraindividual comparison of the bone-anchored hearing aid and air-conduction hearing aids

Abstract

Background: Some patients have to stop using their air-conduction hearing aid(s) because it causes or exacerbates chronic otitis. Then, a solution is the use of a bone-conduction hearing aid such as the percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA).

Objective: To compare patients' performance with their previous air-conduction hearing aid(s) and their BAHA using audiometric tests and a questionnaire.

Design: Prospective clinical evaluation in a single subject design.

Patients: The results of 34 consecutive patients from the Nijmegen, the Netherlands, BAHA series were included. The patients had bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss and chronic ear problems. Before the BAHA was fitted, the patients used air-conduction hearing aids.

Results: The results of the speech recognition in noise test showed a small but significant improvement with the BAHA. This improvement was related to the size of the air-bone gap. The greater the air-bone gap, the poorer the results with the air-conduction hearing aid(s). The questionnaire demonstrated that the majority of patients preferred the BAHA; diminished occurrence of ear infections played a significant role. The patients did not express an evident preference concerning speech recognition.

Conclusions: In patients with chronic ear problems a BAHA is an acceptable alternative if an air-conduction hearing aid is contraindicated. Preoperative assessment of the size of the air-bone gap is of some help to predict whether speech recognition may improve or deteriorate with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid.