[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 1995

Patients' Opinions of Bone-Anchored vs Conventional Hearing Aids

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Nijmegen (the Netherlands).

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;121(4):421-425. doi:10.1001/archotol.1995.01890040045007

Objective:  To evaluate patients' opinions of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) compared with a conventional hearing aid.

Design:  Prospective study with two questionnaires. Questionnaire A consisted of questions that compared patients' previous hearing aid with the BAHA. Questionnaire B consisted of questions about the patients' experiences with the hearing aids.

Patients:  Sixty-five consecutive patients who had used conventional hearing aids.

Setting:  Tertiary referral center.

Intervention:  A percutaneous titanium implant in the temporal bone for the BAHA.

Main Outcome Measure:  Qualitative descriptive results of questionnaire A and difference scores from questionnaire B comparing conventional hearing aids and the BAHA.

Results:  Patients favored the BAHA to the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid. Patients with BAHA reported a significant improvement in speech recognition in quiet and in noise, in sound quality, and in comfort (P<.01). The results with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous for speech recognition, but all the patients reported a decrease in ear infections.

Conclusion:  The BAHA is a good alternative for the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid if a patient can no longer use an air-conduction hearing aid.(Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;121:421-425)