Factors influencing the decision for Baha in unilateral deafness: the Bern benefit in single-sided deafness questionnaire

The data of 46 adults with single-sided sensorineural deafness who were candidates for bone-anchored hearing aids (Baha) CROS (contralateral routing of signals) were analyzed. All candidates tested a Baha with a headband in their normal environment. Subsequently, 29 of the candidates chose a permanent Baha CROS fitting, and 17 declined, thus forming the two study groups. No significant difference regarding age, sex or duration of deafness was found between the two groups. Similarly, the transcranial attenuation was not significantly different between those who accepted and declined a Baha. Subjects with some residual hearing in their poorer ear tended to decline a Baha, but the effect was not statistically significant. For a subset of 28 subjects, the Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness questionnaire was administered. The questionnaire consists of 10 visual analogue scales rating the subjectively perceived benefit of the Baha or any other CROS device in different situations. Scores were found to be significantly higher for speech understanding at some distance (p = 0.026), for speech understanding in noise (p = 0.037), for group conversations (p < 0.01), and for the overall benefit (p < 0.01) for those candidates who chose to use a Baha as a CROS device permanently.

Audiological results with Baha in conductive and mixed hearing loss

The level of improvement in the audiological results of Baha(®) users mainly depends on the patient's preoperative hearing thresholds and the type of Baha sound processor used. This investigation shows correlations between the preoperative hearing threshold and postoperative aided thresholds and audiological results in speech understanding in quiet of 84 Baha users with unilateral conductive hearing loss, bilateral conductive hearing loss and bilateral mixed hearing loss. Secondly, speech understanding in noise of 26 Baha users with different Baha sound processors (Compact, Divino, and BP100) is investigated. Linear regression between aided sound field thresholds and bone conduction (BC) thresholds of the better ear shows highest correlation coefficients and the steepest slope. Differences between better BC thresholds and aided sound field thresholds are smallest for mid-frequencies (1 and 2 kHz) and become larger at 0.5 and 4 kHz. For Baha users, the gain in speech recognition in quiet can be expected to lie in the order of magnitude of the gain in their hearing threshold. Compared to its predecessor sound processors Baha(®) Compact and Baha(®) Divino, Baha(®) BP100 improves speech understanding in noise significantly by +0.9 to +4.6 dB signal-to-noise ratio, depending on the setting and the use of directional microphone. For Baha users with unilateral and bilateral conductive hearing loss and bilateral mixed hearing loss, audiological results in aided sound field thresholds can be estimated with the better BC hearing threshold. The benefit in speech understanding in quiet can be expected to be similar to the gain in their sound field hearing threshold. The most recent technology of Baha sound processor improves speech understanding in noise by an order of magnitude that is well perceived by users and which can be very useful in everyday life.

Benefits of low-frequency attenuation of baha® in single-sided sensorineural deafness

To investigate the effect of low-frequency attenuation of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids (Bahas) in users with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD). The underlying notion is that low-frequency sounds up to approximately 1500 Hz reach the contralateral ear without significant attenuation and that Bahas tend to show more distortion at lower frequencies. Furthermore, to transmit low frequencies, higher moving masses are needed when compared with high frequencies.

Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the bone-anchored hearing aids Baha Compact and Baha Divino

CONCLUSIONS: Speech understanding is better with the Baha Divino than with the Baha Compact in competing noise from the rear. No difference was found for speech understanding in quiet. Subjectively, overall sound quality and speech understanding were rated better for the Baha Divino. OBJECTIVES: To compare speech understanding in quiet and in noise and subjective ratings for two different bone-anchored hearing aids: the recently developed Baha Divino and the Baha Compact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven adults with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing losses who were users of a bone-anchored hearing aid were tested with the Baha Compact in quiet and in noise. Tests were repeated after 3 months of use with the Baha Divino. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two types of Baha for speech understanding in quiet when tested with German numbers and monosyllabic words at presentation levels between 50 and 80 dB. For speech understanding in noise, an advantage of 2.3 dB for the Baha Divino vs the Baha Compact was found, if noise was emitted from a loudspeaker to the rear of the listener and the directional microphone noise reduction system was activated. Subjectively, the Baha Divino was rated statistically significantly better in terms of overall sound quality.

Speech Understanding with a New Implant Technology: A Comparative Study with a New Nonskin Penetrating Baha System

Objective. To compare hearing and speech understanding between a new, nonskin penetrating Baha system (Baha Attract) to the current Baha system using a skin-penetrating abutment. Methods. Hearing and speech understanding were measured in 16 experienced Baha users. The transmission path via the abutment was compared to a simulated Baha Attract transmission path by attaching the implantable magnet to the abutment and then by adding a sample of artificial skin and the external parts of the Baha Attract system. Four different measurements were performed: bone conduction thresholds directly through the sound processor (BC Direct), aided sound field thresholds, aided speech understanding in quiet, and aided speech understanding in noise. Results. The simulated Baha Attract transmission path introduced an attenuation starting from approximately 5 dB at 1000 Hz, increasing to 20–25 dB above 6000 Hz. However, aided sound field threshold shows smaller differences and aided speech understanding in quiet and in noise does not differ significantly between the two transmission paths. Conclusion. The Baha Attract system transmission path introduces predominately high frequency attenuation. This attenuation can be partially compensated by adequate fitting of the speech processor. No significant decrease in speech understanding in either quiet or in noise was found.

The floating mass transducer at the round window: direct transmission or bone conduction?

The round window placement of a floating mass transducer (FMT) is a new approach for coupling an implantable hearing system to the cochlea. We evaluated the vibration transfer to the cochlear fluids of an FMT placed at the round window (rwFMT) with special attention to the role of bone conduction. A posterior tympanotomy was performed on eleven ears of seven human whole head specimens. Several rwFMT setups were examined using laser Doppler vibrometry measurements at the stapes and the promontory. In three ears, the vibrations of a bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA) and an FMT fixed to the promontory (pFMT) were compared to explore the role of bone conduction. Vibration transmission to the measuring point at the stapes was best when the rwFMT was perpendicularly placed in the round window and underlayed with connective tissue. Fixation of the rwFMT to the round window exhibited significantly lower vibration transmission. Although measurable, bone conduction from the pFMT was much lower than that of the BAHA. Our results suggest that the rwFMT does not act as a small bone anchored hearing aid, but instead, acts as a direct vibratory stimulator of the round window membrane.

Comparisons of sound processors based on osseointegrated implants in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss

To compare the patient benefit of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (Baha) Divino and the Baha BP100 sound processors.

Surgery for the bone-anchored hearing aid

This review covers the surgery for the bone-anchored hearing aid (Baha(®)). PREOPERATIVE WORKUP: A review of the indications and preoperative diagnostics shows that best results are generally obtained in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss rehabilitation when surgery is not applicable or has failed and in patients that suffer from single-sided deafness. An audiogram must confirm that the bone conduction hearing is within the inclusion criteria. A computed tomography scan is performed in cases of malformation to assure sufficient bone thickness at the site of screw implantation.

Bone-anchored Hearing Aids: correlation between pure-tone thresholds and outcome in three user groups

OBJECTIVE: To investigate correlations between preoperative hearing thresholds and postoperative aided thresholds and speech understanding of users of Bone-anchored Hearing Aids (BAHA). Such correlations may be useful to estimate the postoperative outcome with BAHA from preoperative data. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS:: Ninety-two adult unilaterally implanted BAHA users in 3 groups: (A) 24 subjects with a unilateral conductive hearing loss, (B) 38 subjects with a bilateral conductive hearing loss, and (C) 30 subjects with single-sided deafness. INTERVENTIONS: Preoperative air-conduction and bone-conduction thresholds and 3-month postoperative aided and unaided sound-field thresholds as well as speech understanding using German 2-digit numbers and monosyllabic words were measured and analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlation between preoperative air-conduction and bone-conduction thresholds of the better and of the poorer ear and postoperative aided thresholds as well as correlations between gain in sound-field threshold and gain in speech understanding. RESULTS: Aided postoperative sound-field thresholds correlate best with BC threshold of the better ear (correlation coefficients, r2 = 0.237 to 0.419, p = 0.0006 to 0.0064, depending on the group of subjects). Improvements in sound-field threshold correspond to improvements in speech understanding. CONCLUSION: When estimating expected postoperative aided sound-field thresholds of BAHA users from preoperative hearing thresholds, the BC threshold of the better ear should be used. For the patient groups considered, speech understanding in quiet can be estimated from the improvement in sound-field thresholds.

Influence of directionality and maximal power output on speech understanding with bone anchored hearing implants in single sided deafness

Bone-anchored hearing implants (BAHI) are routinely used to alleviate the effects of the acoustic head shadow in single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD). In this study, the influence of the directional microphone setting and the maximum power output of the BAHI sound processor on speech understanding in noise in a laboratory setting were investigated. Eight adult BAHI users with SSD participated in this pilot study. Speech understanding in noise was measured using a new Slovak speech-in-noise test in two different spatial settings, either with noise coming from the front and noise from the side of the BAHI (S90N0) or vice versa (S0N90). In both spatial settings, speech understanding was measured without a BAHI, with a Baha BP100 in omnidirectional mode, with a BP100 in directional mode, with a BP110 power in omnidirectional and with a BP110 power in directional mode. In spatial setting S90N0, speech understanding in noise with either sound processor and in either directional mode was improved by 2.2-2.8 dB (p = 0.004-0.016). In spatial setting S0N90, speech understanding in noise was reduced by either BAHI, but was significantly better by 1.0-1.8 dB, if the directional microphone system was activated (p = 0.046), when compared to the omnidirectional setting. With the limited number of subjects in this study, no statistically significant differences were found between the two sound processors.

Hearing performance with 2 different high-power sound processors for osseointegrated auditory implants

OBJECTIVE To compare speech understanding of the BAHA BP110 and BAHA Intenso sound processors. STUDY DESIGN Prospective experimental study. SETTING Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS Twenty experienced user of osseointegrated auditory implants with conductive or mixed hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS In a first session, half of the participants were fitted with an Intenso, the other half with a BP110. After 1 month of use, aided speech understanding in quiet and in noise was measured, and the other test processor was fitted. One month later, speech understanding with the second sound processor was assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Speech understanding in quiet and in noise, with noise arriving either from the front, the rear, or the side of the user with the osseointegrated bone conductor. RESULTS Significant improvements were found for both processors for speech understanding in quiet (+9.6 to +34.8 percent points; p = 0.02 to 0.001) and in noise (+6.2 to +13.8 dB, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the 2 devices for speech in quiet. For noise from the rear, subjects were able to understand speech at signal-to-noise ratios which were lower (less favorable) by -5.1 dB (p < 0.001) when compared with the Intenso. CONCLUSION Speech understanding is substantially improved by both devices, with no significant differences between the sound processors in quiet. In noise, speech understanding is significantly better with the BP110 when compared to the Intenso for noise from the rear.

Bone conduction in Thiel-embalmed cadaver heads

INTRODUCTION Sound can reach the inner ear via at least two different pathways: air conduction and bone conduction (BC). BC hearing is used clinically for diagnostic purposes and for BC hearing aids. Research on the motion of the human middle ear in response to BC stimulation is typically conducted using cadaver models. We evaluated middle ear motion of Thiel-embalmed whole-head specimens in terms of linearity, reproducibility, and consistency with the reported middle ear motion of living subjects, fresh cadaveric temporal bones, and whole-heads embalmed with a Non-Thiel solution of salts. METHODS We used laser Doppler vibrometry to measure the displacement of the skull, the umbo, the cochlear promontory, the stapes, and the round window in seven ears from four human whole-head specimens embalmed according to Thiel's method. The ears were stimulated with a Baha(®) implanted behind the auricle. RESULTS The Thiel model shows promontory velocity similar to that reported in the literature for whole-heads embalmed with a Non-Thiel solution of salts (0- to 7-dB difference). The Thiel heads' relative velocity of the stapes with respect to the promontory was similar to that of fresh cadaver temporal bones (0- to 4-dB difference). The velocity of the umbo was comparable in Thiel-embalmed heads and living subjects (0- to 10-dB difference). The skull and all middle ear elements measured responded linearly to different stimulation levels, with an average difference less than 1 dB. The variability of repeated measurements for both short- (2 h; 4 dB) and long-term (4-16 weeks; 6 dB) repetitions in the same ear, and the difference between the two ears of the same donor (approximately 10 dB) were lower than the inter-individual difference (up to 25 dB). CONCLUSION Thiel-embalmed human whole-head specimens can be used as an alternative model for the study of human middle ear mechanics secondary to BC stimulation. At some frequencies, differences from living subjects must be considered.

Is complex signal processing for bone conduction hearing aids useful?

OBJECTIVES To establish whether complex signal processing is beneficial for users of bone anchored hearing aids. METHODS Review and analysis of two studies from our own group, each comparing a speech processor with basic digital signal processing (either Baha Divino or Baha Intenso) and a processor with complex digital signal processing (either Baha BP100 or Baha BP110 power). The main differences between basic and complex signal processing are the number of audiologist accessible frequency channels and the availability and complexity of the directional multi-microphone noise reduction and loudness compression systems. RESULTS Both studies show a small, statistically non-significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet with the complex digital signal processing. The average improvement for speech in noise is +0.9 dB, if speech and noise are emitted both from the front of the listener. If noise is emitted from the rear and speech from the front of the listener, the advantage of the devices with complex digital signal processing as opposed to those with basic signal processing increases, on average, to +3.2 dB (range +2.3 … +5.1 dB, p ≤ 0.0032). DISCUSSION Complex digital signal processing does indeed improve speech understanding, especially in noise coming from the rear. This finding has been supported by another study, which has been published recently by a different research group. CONCLUSIONS When compared to basic digital signal processing, complex digital signal processing can increase speech understanding of users of bone anchored hearing aids. The benefit is most significant for speech understanding in noise.