Arjan J. Bosman

Bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral inner ear deafness: a study of 20 patients.

Objective: To evaluate the benefit of a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) contralateral routing of sound (CROS) in 20 patients with unilateral inner ear deafness. Subjects: 21 patients were recruited; 15 had undergone acoustic neuroma surgery and 6 patients had unilateral profound hearing loss due to other causes; 1 patient was excluded. Only patients with thresholds of better than 25 dB HL (500–2000 Hz) and an air-bone gap of less than 10 dB in the best ear were included. Methods: Evaluation involved audiometric measurements before intervention, when fitted with a conventional CROS and after implementation and quantification of the patients’ subjective benefit with a hearing aid-specific instrument: the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Results: Lateralization scores were not significantly different from chance (50%) in any of the three conditions. Measurements of speech perception in noise showed an increase in the signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio) with the conventional CROS (p = 0.001) and with the BAHA CROS compared to the unaided condition when speech was presented at the front with noise on the poor hearing side. On the other hand, a lower S/N ratio was seen with the BAHA CROS (p = 0.003) compared to the unaided situation when noise was presented at the front with speech on the poor hearing side. The patient outcome measure (APHAB) showed improvement, particularly with the BAHA CROS. Conclusions: The poor sound localization results illustrate the inability of patients with unilateral inner ear deafness to localize sounds. The speech-in-noise measurements reflect the benefit of a BAHA CROS in lifting the head shadow while avoiding some of the disadvantages of a conventional CROS. The benefit of the BAHA CROS was most clearly reflected in the patients’ opinion measured with the APHAB.

Candidacy for the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

The BAHA (bone-anchored hearing aid) is a bone conduction hearing aid with percutaneous transmission of sound vibrations to the skull. The device has been thoroughly evaluated by various implant groups. These studies showed that, in audiological terms, the BAHA is superior to conventional bone conduction devices. In comparison with air conduction devices, the results are ambiguous. However, a positive effect is found with respect to aural discharge. The most powerful BAHA can be applied to patients with a sensorineural hearing loss component of up to 60 dB HL. It was shown that bilateral BAHA application leads to binaural sound processing. Preliminary results on the application of the BAHA in patients with unilateral conductive hearing loss suggest that stereophonic hearing can be re-established. The application of the BAHA as a transcranial CROS (contralateral routing of signal) device in unilateral deafness minimizes head shadow effects.

Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids in Patients with Acquired and Congenital Unilateral Inner Ear Deafness (Baha CROS): Clinical Evaluation of 56 Cases:

Objectives We performed an evaluation of the audiological and subjective benefits of the bone-anchored hearing aid (Baha) as a device for transcranial routing of sound (Baha CROS) in 56 patients with unilateral inner ear deafness. Methods We performed a prospective clinical follow-up study in a tertiary referral center. Previously reported results of 29 patients were supplemented with a second series of 30 patients with unilateral inner ear deafness; 3 patients dropped out during the evaluation. Audiometric measurements were taken before and after Baha CROS fitting. Subjective benefits were quantified with 4 different patient questionnaires. Results The sound localization results in a well-structured test setting were not differentiable from chance. The 5 patients with congenital hearing loss showed better scores in the unaided sound localization measurements. Overall, most patients reported some subjective improvement in their capacity to localize sounds with the Baha CROS in daily life. The main effect of the Baha CROS was to alleviate the head shadow effect during the speech-in-noise test. Conclusions Poor sound localization in this larger series of patients confirms the findings of previous studies. Improvements in the speech-in-noise scores corroborated the efficacy of the Baha CROS in alleviating the head shadow effect. The 4 different patient questionnaires revealed subjective benefit and satisfaction in various domains.

Fitting range of the BAHA Intenso

Audiometric characteristics of a recently introduced more powerful, behind-the-ear, BAHA sound processor, the BAHA Intenso, were evaluated in 23 patients with contra-indications for using conventional hearing aids. All patients had mixed hearing loss with boneconduction thresholds ranging between 30 and 50 dB HL. Boneconduction gain, defined as the difference in aided free-field detection thresholds and unaided boneconduction thresholds, was calculated at the octave frequencies between 500 Hz and 4 kHz. Median boneconduction gain of the Intenso ranges from 0 dB at 500 ;Hz to 12 ;dB at 2 kHz with substantial interindividual variability. The upper limit of the BAHA Intensos fitting range was established by requiring aided speech reception thresholds with CVC-monosyllables of at most 60 dB SPL. The fitting range of the BAHA Intenso appeared to be limited to 42, 44, 58, and 48 dB HL for boneconduction thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 ;kHz, respectively. Loudness growth functions at 0.5 and 3 kHz as obtained with 7-point categorical scaling showed an adequate aided dynamic range.

Audiological evaluation of affected members from a Dutch DFNA8/12 (TECTA) family.

In DFNA8/12, an autosomal dominantly inherited type of nonsyndromic hearing impairment, the TECTA gene mutation causes a defect in the structure of the tectorial membrane in the inner ear. Because DFNA8/12 affects the tectorial membrane, patients with DFNA8/12 may show specific audiometric characteristics. In this study, five selected members of a Dutch DFNA8/12 family with a TECTA sensorineural hearing impairment were evaluated with pure-tone audiometry, loudness scaling, speech perception in quiet and noise, difference limen for frequency, acoustic reflexes, otoacoustic emissions, and gap detection. Four out of five subjects showed an elevation of pure-tone thresholds, acoustic reflex thresholds, and loudness discomfort levels. Loudness growth curves are parallel to those found in normal-hearing individuals. Suprathreshold measures such as difference limen for frequency modulated pure tones, gap detection, and particularly speech perception in noise are within the normal range. Distortion otoacoustic emissions are present at the higher stimulus level. These results are similar to those previously obtained from a Dutch DFNA13 family with midfrequency sensorineural hearing impairment. It seems that a defect in the tectorial membrane results primarily in an attenuation of sound, whereas suprathreshold measures, such as otoacoustic emissions and speech perception in noise, are preserved rather well. The main effect of the defects is a shift in the operation point of the outer hair cells with near intact functioning at high levels. As most test results reflect those found in middle-ear conductive loss in both families, the sensorineural hearing impairment may be characterized as a cochlear conductive hearing impairment.

Fitting range of the BAHA Cordelle

The performance of the most powerful Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) currently available, the BAHA Cordelle, was evaluated in 25 patients with severe to profound mixed hearing loss. Patients showed bone conduction thresholds at 500, 1000 and 2000 Hz, ranged between 30 and 70 dB HL, and an additional air-bone gap of about at least 30 dB. With the BAHA Cordelle, free-field thresholds improve relative to bone-conduction thresholds with 1.5, 5.0, 17.8, and 4.3 dB at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, respectively, with substantial inter-individual variability. The differences in unaided air conduction thresholds and aided free-field thresholds amount to 45.3, 45.8, 47.5, and 43.5 dB at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, respectively. Speech perception, measured both with monosyllables of the consonant-vowel-consonant type and with bisyllables, showed highly similar results. The fitting range of a (linear) hearing aid is determined by its gain characteristics. Requiring aided speech reception thresholds at or better than 65 dB SPL results in an upper limit of the fitting range of the BAHA Cordelle for bone-conduction thresholds of 51, 56, 67, and 58 dB HL at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, respectively. The dynamic range provided by the BAHA Cordelle was estimated from loudness growth functions at 500, 1500, and 3000 Hz employing 7-point categorical scaling. On average, aided loudness growth functions exhibit normal slopes but they level off at input levels of about 80, 70, 65 dB SPL for 500, 1500, and 3000 Hz stimuli, respectively. Measurements with a skull simulator demonstrated that the levelling-off reflects saturation of the output of the Cordelle. The relatively low saturation levels of the device suggest that increasing maximum output levels may be a worthwhile consideration for candidates with more profound sensorineural loss.

Audiological characteristics of some affected members of a Dutch DFNA13/COL11A2 family

Members of a Dutch DFNA13/COL11A2 family were evaluated with pure tone audiometry, stapedial reflexes, otoacoustic emissions, loudness scaling, difference limen for frequency, gap detection, and speech perception in quiet and noise. The tone audiometry showed a predominant loss for the low and middle frequencies, with only a few otoacoustic emissions at thresholds better than 25 dB hearing level. The stapedial reflexes appeared elevated, and loudness growth curves were shifted parallel to those for normal-hearing subjects, indicating a shift of the dynamic range toward higher presentation levels. The data for the difference limen for frequency, gap detection, and speech perception in noise fell within the (near-)normal range. Despite elevated thresholds, all suprathreshold functions showed fairly normal properties, suggesting an attenuation of signal energy in the cochlea with limited degradation of the cochleas signal analyzing capabilities. The effect of DFNA13/COL11A2 may thus be characterized as a cochlear conductive loss.

Evaluation of a new powerful bone-anchored hearing system: a comparison study.

BACKGROUND The recent introduction of digital hearing aid technology for bone-conduction devices employing percutaneous stimulation may be beneficial for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss and single sided deafness. PURPOSE Performance of a recently released sound processor for bone-anchored implants, the Ponto Pro Power from Oticon Medical (bone-conduction device 2 [BCD2]), was compared with that of the Baha Intenso from Cochlear (bone-conduction device 1 [BCD1]). RESEARCH DESIGN Direct comparison of the subjects own device (BCD1) with the new device (BCD2) was examined in a nonrandomized design. Subjects were initially tested with BCD1. BCD2 was tested after a 4 wk acclimatization period. STUDY SAMPLE Eighteen subjects with mixed hearing loss and with at least 4 mo experience with BCD1 completed the study. Mean air-conduction and bone-conduction thresholds averaged across the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz were 73.9 and 34.2 dB HL, respectively. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Performance of the two devices was evaluated objectively by measuring aided free-field thresholds, speech perception in quiet, and speech perception in noise. A subjective evaluation was carried out with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) (Cox and Alexander, 1995) and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) questionnaire (Gatehouse and Noble, 2004). In addition, user experiences, user satisfaction, and device preference were obtained via proprietary questionnaires. Statistical significance was established with analysis-of-variance (ANOVA) and paired t-statistics with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS Aided free-field thresholds and speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in quiet were not statistically significantly different for either device (p > 0.05). In contrast, SRTs in noise were 2.0 dB lower (p < 0.001) for BCD2 than for BCD1. APHAB questionnaire scores on all subscales provided statistically significantly greater benefit (p < 0.05) for BCD2 than for BCD1. Also, with the SSQ most items in the speech and sound quality domain were significantly more favorable (p < 0.05) for BCD2 than for BCD1. Finally, all subjects preferred BCD2 over BCD1 with 14 subjects reporting a strong preference and four subjects an average preference for the digital signal processing provided by BCD2 over previous technology provided by BCD1.

How to quantify binaural hearing in patients with unilateral hearing using hearing implants

Application of bilateral hearing devices in bilateral hearing loss and unilateral application in unilateral hearing loss (second ear with normal hearing) does not a priori lead to binaural hearing. An overview is presented on several measures of binaural benefits that have been used in patients with unilateral or bilateral deafness using one or two cochlear implants, respectively, and in patients with unilateral or bilateral conductive/mixed hearing loss using one or two percutaneous bone conduction implants (BCDs), respectively. Overall, according to this overview, the most significant and sensitive measure is the benefit in directional hearing. Measures using speech (viz. binaural summation, binaural squelch or use of the head shadow effect) showed minor benefits, except for patients with bilateral conductive/mixed hearing loss using two BCDs. Although less feasible in daily practise, the binaural masking level difference test seems to be a promising option in the assessment of binaural function.