Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid: Results in 40 patients

Lawrence R. Lustig, H. Alexander Arts, Derald E. Brackmann, Howard F. Francis, Tim Molony, Cliff A. Megerian, Gary Floyd Moore, Karen M. Moore, Trish Morrow, William Potsic, Jay T. Rubenstein, Sharmilla Srireddy, Charles A. Syms, Gail Takahashi, David Vernick, Phillip A. Wackym, John K. Niparko

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

98 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluates the U.S. experience with the first 40 patients who have undergone audiologic rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid. Study Design: This study is a multicenter, nonblinded, retrospective case series. Setting: Twelve tertiary referral medical centers in the United States. Patients: Eligibility for BAHA implantation included patients with a hearing loss and an inability to tolerate a conventional hearing aid, with bone-conduction pure tone average levels at 60 dB or less at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. Intervention: Patients who met audiologic and clinical criteria were implanted with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA, Entific Corp., Gothenburg, Sweden). Main Outcome Measures: Preoperative air- and bone-conduction thresholds and air-bone gap; postoperative BAHA-aided thresholds; hearing improvement as a result of implantation; implantation complications; and patient satisfaction. Results: The most common indications for implantation included chronic otitis media or draining ears (18 patients) and external auditory canal stenosis or aural atresia (7 patients). Overall, each patient had an average improvement of 32 ± 19 dB with the use of the BAHA. Closure of the air-bone gap to within 10 dB of the preoperative bone-conduction thresholds (postoperative BAHA-aided threshold vs. preoperative bone-conduction threshold) occurred in 32 patients (80%), whereas closure to within 5 dB occurred in 24 patients (60%). Twelve patients (30%) demonstrated 'overclosure' of the preoperative bone-conduction threshold of the better hearing ear. Complications were limited to local infection and inflammation at the implant site in three patients, and failure to osseointegrate in one patient. Patient response to the implant was uniformly satisfactory. Only one patient reported dissatisfaction with the device. Conclusions: The BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid provides a reliable and predictable adjunct for auditory rehabilitation in appropriately selected patients, offering a means of dramatically improving hearing thresholds in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss who are otherwise unable to benefit from traditional hearing aids.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)328-334
Number of pages7
JournalOtology and Neurotology
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Fingerprint

Hearing Aids
Hearing
Rehabilitation
Bone and Bones
Bone Conduction
Ear
Air
Correction of Hearing Impairment
Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Conductive Hearing Loss
Ear Canal
Otitis Media
Patient Satisfaction
Hearing Loss
Sweden
Tertiary Care Centers

Keywords

  • Bone conduction
  • Conductive hearing loss
  • Congenital aural atresia
  • Hearing aid
  • Hearing implant
  • Otitis media
  • Otosclerosis
  • Skull base

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Lustig, L. R., Arts, H. A., Brackmann, D. E., Francis, H. F., Molony, T., Megerian, C. A., ... Niparko, J. K. (2001). Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid: Results in 40 patients. Otology and Neurotology, 22(3), 328-334. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200105000-00010

Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid : Results in 40 patients. / Lustig, Lawrence R.; Arts, H. Alexander; Brackmann, Derald E.; Francis, Howard F.; Molony, Tim; Megerian, Cliff A.; Moore, Gary Floyd; Moore, Karen M.; Morrow, Trish; Potsic, William; Rubenstein, Jay T.; Srireddy, Sharmilla; Syms, Charles A.; Takahashi, Gail; Vernick, David; Wackym, Phillip A.; Niparko, John K.

In: Otology and Neurotology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 01.01.2001, p. 328-334.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lustig, LR, Arts, HA, Brackmann, DE, Francis, HF, Molony, T, Megerian, CA, Moore, GF, Moore, KM, Morrow, T, Potsic, W, Rubenstein, JT, Srireddy, S, Syms, CA, Takahashi, G, Vernick, D, Wackym, PA & Niparko, JK 2001, 'Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid: Results in 40 patients', Otology and Neurotology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 328-334. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200105000-00010
Lustig, Lawrence R. ; Arts, H. Alexander ; Brackmann, Derald E. ; Francis, Howard F. ; Molony, Tim ; Megerian, Cliff A. ; Moore, Gary Floyd ; Moore, Karen M. ; Morrow, Trish ; Potsic, William ; Rubenstein, Jay T. ; Srireddy, Sharmilla ; Syms, Charles A. ; Takahashi, Gail ; Vernick, David ; Wackym, Phillip A. ; Niparko, John K. / Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid : Results in 40 patients. In: Otology and Neurotology. 2001 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 328-334.
@article{6264212fd17640a4bc4ca238f76eb06e,
title = "Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid: Results in 40 patients",
abstract = "Objective: This study evaluates the U.S. experience with the first 40 patients who have undergone audiologic rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid. Study Design: This study is a multicenter, nonblinded, retrospective case series. Setting: Twelve tertiary referral medical centers in the United States. Patients: Eligibility for BAHA implantation included patients with a hearing loss and an inability to tolerate a conventional hearing aid, with bone-conduction pure tone average levels at 60 dB or less at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. Intervention: Patients who met audiologic and clinical criteria were implanted with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA, Entific Corp., Gothenburg, Sweden). Main Outcome Measures: Preoperative air- and bone-conduction thresholds and air-bone gap; postoperative BAHA-aided thresholds; hearing improvement as a result of implantation; implantation complications; and patient satisfaction. Results: The most common indications for implantation included chronic otitis media or draining ears (18 patients) and external auditory canal stenosis or aural atresia (7 patients). Overall, each patient had an average improvement of 32 ± 19 dB with the use of the BAHA. Closure of the air-bone gap to within 10 dB of the preoperative bone-conduction thresholds (postoperative BAHA-aided threshold vs. preoperative bone-conduction threshold) occurred in 32 patients (80{\%}), whereas closure to within 5 dB occurred in 24 patients (60{\%}). Twelve patients (30{\%}) demonstrated 'overclosure' of the preoperative bone-conduction threshold of the better hearing ear. Complications were limited to local infection and inflammation at the implant site in three patients, and failure to osseointegrate in one patient. Patient response to the implant was uniformly satisfactory. Only one patient reported dissatisfaction with the device. Conclusions: The BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid provides a reliable and predictable adjunct for auditory rehabilitation in appropriately selected patients, offering a means of dramatically improving hearing thresholds in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss who are otherwise unable to benefit from traditional hearing aids.",
keywords = "Bone conduction, Conductive hearing loss, Congenital aural atresia, Hearing aid, Hearing implant, Otitis media, Otosclerosis, Skull base",
author = "Lustig, {Lawrence R.} and Arts, {H. Alexander} and Brackmann, {Derald E.} and Francis, {Howard F.} and Tim Molony and Megerian, {Cliff A.} and Moore, {Gary Floyd} and Moore, {Karen M.} and Trish Morrow and William Potsic and Rubenstein, {Jay T.} and Sharmilla Srireddy and Syms, {Charles A.} and Gail Takahashi and David Vernick and Wackym, {Phillip A.} and Niparko, {John K.}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00129492-200105000-00010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "328--334",
journal = "Otology and Neurotology",
issn = "1531-7129",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hearing rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid

T2 - Results in 40 patients

AU - Lustig, Lawrence R.

AU - Arts, H. Alexander

AU - Brackmann, Derald E.

AU - Francis, Howard F.

AU - Molony, Tim

AU - Megerian, Cliff A.

AU - Moore, Gary Floyd

AU - Moore, Karen M.

AU - Morrow, Trish

AU - Potsic, William

AU - Rubenstein, Jay T.

AU - Srireddy, Sharmilla

AU - Syms, Charles A.

AU - Takahashi, Gail

AU - Vernick, David

AU - Wackym, Phillip A.

AU - Niparko, John K.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Objective: This study evaluates the U.S. experience with the first 40 patients who have undergone audiologic rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid. Study Design: This study is a multicenter, nonblinded, retrospective case series. Setting: Twelve tertiary referral medical centers in the United States. Patients: Eligibility for BAHA implantation included patients with a hearing loss and an inability to tolerate a conventional hearing aid, with bone-conduction pure tone average levels at 60 dB or less at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. Intervention: Patients who met audiologic and clinical criteria were implanted with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA, Entific Corp., Gothenburg, Sweden). Main Outcome Measures: Preoperative air- and bone-conduction thresholds and air-bone gap; postoperative BAHA-aided thresholds; hearing improvement as a result of implantation; implantation complications; and patient satisfaction. Results: The most common indications for implantation included chronic otitis media or draining ears (18 patients) and external auditory canal stenosis or aural atresia (7 patients). Overall, each patient had an average improvement of 32 ± 19 dB with the use of the BAHA. Closure of the air-bone gap to within 10 dB of the preoperative bone-conduction thresholds (postoperative BAHA-aided threshold vs. preoperative bone-conduction threshold) occurred in 32 patients (80%), whereas closure to within 5 dB occurred in 24 patients (60%). Twelve patients (30%) demonstrated 'overclosure' of the preoperative bone-conduction threshold of the better hearing ear. Complications were limited to local infection and inflammation at the implant site in three patients, and failure to osseointegrate in one patient. Patient response to the implant was uniformly satisfactory. Only one patient reported dissatisfaction with the device. Conclusions: The BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid provides a reliable and predictable adjunct for auditory rehabilitation in appropriately selected patients, offering a means of dramatically improving hearing thresholds in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss who are otherwise unable to benefit from traditional hearing aids.

AB - Objective: This study evaluates the U.S. experience with the first 40 patients who have undergone audiologic rehabilitation using the BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid. Study Design: This study is a multicenter, nonblinded, retrospective case series. Setting: Twelve tertiary referral medical centers in the United States. Patients: Eligibility for BAHA implantation included patients with a hearing loss and an inability to tolerate a conventional hearing aid, with bone-conduction pure tone average levels at 60 dB or less at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. Intervention: Patients who met audiologic and clinical criteria were implanted with the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA, Entific Corp., Gothenburg, Sweden). Main Outcome Measures: Preoperative air- and bone-conduction thresholds and air-bone gap; postoperative BAHA-aided thresholds; hearing improvement as a result of implantation; implantation complications; and patient satisfaction. Results: The most common indications for implantation included chronic otitis media or draining ears (18 patients) and external auditory canal stenosis or aural atresia (7 patients). Overall, each patient had an average improvement of 32 ± 19 dB with the use of the BAHA. Closure of the air-bone gap to within 10 dB of the preoperative bone-conduction thresholds (postoperative BAHA-aided threshold vs. preoperative bone-conduction threshold) occurred in 32 patients (80%), whereas closure to within 5 dB occurred in 24 patients (60%). Twelve patients (30%) demonstrated 'overclosure' of the preoperative bone-conduction threshold of the better hearing ear. Complications were limited to local infection and inflammation at the implant site in three patients, and failure to osseointegrate in one patient. Patient response to the implant was uniformly satisfactory. Only one patient reported dissatisfaction with the device. Conclusions: The BAHA bone-anchored hearing aid provides a reliable and predictable adjunct for auditory rehabilitation in appropriately selected patients, offering a means of dramatically improving hearing thresholds in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss who are otherwise unable to benefit from traditional hearing aids.

KW - Bone conduction

KW - Conductive hearing loss

KW - Congenital aural atresia

KW - Hearing aid

KW - Hearing implant

KW - Otitis media

KW - Otosclerosis

KW - Skull base

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035014012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035014012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00129492-200105000-00010

DO - 10.1097/00129492-200105000-00010

M3 - Article

C2 - 11347635

AN - SCOPUS:0035014012

VL - 22

SP - 328

EP - 334

JO - Otology and Neurotology

JF - Otology and Neurotology

SN - 1531-7129

IS - 3

ER -