Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.
Clin Otolaryngol. 2010 Aug;35(4):284-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02177.x.
To assess the efficacy of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness (SSD).
Retrospective case-control series review.
Tertiary referral unit.
Fifty-eight consecutive patients that had a bone-anchored hearing aid for single-sided deafness completed outcome questionnaires, building upon earlier audiological assessment of 19 patients. Single-sided deafness controls (n = 49) were mainly acoustic neuroma patients.
speech discrimination testing in directional noise, speech and spatial qualities of hearing questionnaire and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI).
The mean follow-up time was 28.4 months. Five (13%) of the bone-anchored hearing aid patients were non-users because of lack of benefit. The audiometric testing confirmed that when noise was on the bone-anchored hearing aid side speech perception was reduced but benefited when noise was on the side of the hearing ear. There was no difference between the Speech and Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scores in bone-anchored hearing aid users and controls. In particular there was no difference in the spatial subscores. In the bone-anchored hearing aid users the median Glasgow Benefit Inventory score was 11. If the non-users are included then 13 (22%) patients had no or detrimental (negative) Benefit scores. No or negative benefit scores were more frequent in those deaf for <10 years. In open-field questions, patients felt the bone-anchored hearing aid was most useful in small groups or in 'one-to-one' conversation.
Bone-anchored hearing aid rehabilitation for single-sided deafness is less successful than for other indications, reflected here by relatively low median Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores. There was also no significant difference between controls and bone-anchored hearing aid users in the Speech and Spatial Qualities of Hearing Questionnaire. Patients with a longer duration of deafness report greater subjective benefit than those more recently deafened, perhaps due to differing expectations.
评估骨锚式助听器（BAHA）在单侧耳聋（SSD）康复中的疗效。
回顾性病例对照系列研究。
三级转诊单位。
58 例连续单侧耳聋患者接受骨锚式助听器治疗，完成了基于 19 例患者早期听力评估的结果问卷。单侧耳聋对照组（n=49）主要为听神经瘤患者。
在定向噪声中进行语音辨别测试、语音和听觉空间质量问卷以及格拉斯哥受益量表（GBI）。
平均随访时间为 28.4 个月。5 例（13%）骨锚式助听器患者因缺乏受益而未使用。听力测试证实，当噪声在骨锚式助听器一侧时，言语感知能力下降，但当噪声在听力耳一侧时，受益。骨锚式助听器使用者和对照组之间的语音和听觉空间质量评分没有差异。特别是在空间子评分方面没有差异。在骨锚式助听器使用者中，中位数格拉斯哥受益量表评分是 11。如果包括未使用者，则有 13 例（22%）患者的受益评分为零或负。在骨锚式助听器使用者中，零或负受益评分在耳聋时间<10 年的患者中更为常见。在开放式问题中，患者认为骨锚式助听器在小组或“一对一”对话中最有用。
骨锚式助听器治疗单侧耳聋的效果不如其他适应证，这反映在格拉斯哥受益量表的中位数相对较低。在语音和听觉空间质量问卷中，对照组和骨锚式助听器使用者之间也没有显著差异。耳聋时间较长的患者比新近耳聋的患者报告有更大的主观受益，这可能是由于期望不同。
