Search

Purpose: The study evaluated if there were differences between two types of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA), percutaneous vs transcutaneous implants in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. Methods: Eleven patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss in the implanted ear with a bone conduction pure-tone average (BC PTA) of the hearing threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz ≤ 55 dB HL, aged > 5 years. Patients were assigned to two groups: percutaneous implant (BAHA Connect) and transcutaneous implant (BAHA Attract). Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by the implant, and the variation in the quality of life after the surgery. Results: No differences were found comparing the data of Matrix SRT. APHAB and GBI questionnaires did not show a statistically significant difference comparing each subscale and the global score. The comparison of scores obtained from the SADL questionnaire demonstrated a difference in the "Personal Image" subscale with a better score for the transcutaneous implant. Furthermore, the Global Score of the SADL questionnaire was statistically different between groups. Other subscales did not show any significant difference. A Spearman's ρ correlation test was used to evaluate if the age could influence the SRT results; no correlation was found between age and SRT. Furthermore, the same test was used to confirm a negative correlation between SRT and the global benefit of the APHAB questionnaire. Conclusion: The current research confirms the absence of statistically significant differences comparing percutaneous and transcutaneous implants. The Matrix sentence test has shown the comparability of the two implants in the speech-in-noise intelligibility. Actually, the choice of the implant type can be done according to the patient's personal needs, the surgeon's experience, and the patient anatomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone conduction devices (BCDs) are advocated as an amplification option for patients with congenital conductive unilateral hearing loss (UHL), while other treatment options could also be considered. The current study compared a transcutaneous BCD (Sophono) with a percutaneous BCD (bone-anchored hearing aid, BAHA) in 12 children with congenital conductive UHL. Tolerability, audiometry, and sound localization abilities with both types of BCD were studied retrospectively. The mean follow-up was 3.6 years for the Sophono users ( n = 6) and 4.7 years for the BAHA users ( n = 6). In each group, two patients had stopped using their BCD. Tolerability was favorable for the Sophono. Aided thresholds with the Sophono were unsatisfactory, as they did not reach under a mean pure tone average of 30 dB HL. Sound localization generally improved with both the Sophono and the BAHA, although localization abilities did not reach the level of normal hearing children. These findings, together with previously reported outcomes, are important to take into account when counseling patients and their caretakers. The selection of a suitable amplification option should always be made deliberately and on individual basis for each patient in this diverse group of children with congenital conductive UHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]