Bone-anchored hearing system, contralateral routing of signals hearing aid or cochlear implant: what is best in single-sided deafness?
Bone anchored hearing system
Cochlear implant
Contralateral routing of signals hearing aids hearing aid
SSQ
Single-sided deafness
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
04
11
2020
accepted:
20
01
2021
pubmed:
11
2
2021
medline:
11
1
2022
entrez:
10
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to compare long-term results after 1 year in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who were fitted with different hearing aids. The participants tested contralateral routing of signals (CROS) hearing aids and bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). They were also informed about the possibility of a cochlear implant (CI) and chose one of the three devices. We also investigated which factors influenced the choice of device. Prospective study with 89 SSD participants who were divided into three groups by choosing BAHS, CROS, or CI. All participants received test batteries with both objective hearing tests (speech perception in noise and sound localisation) and subjective questionnaires. 16 participants opted for BAHS-, 13 for CROS- and 30 for CI-treatment. The greater the subjective impairment caused by SSD, the more likely patients were to opt for surgical treatment (BAHS or CI). The best results in terms of speech perception in noise (especially when sound reaches the deaf ear and noise the hearing ear), sound localization, and subjective results were achieved with CI. The best results regarding the therapy of SSD are achieved with a CI, followed by BAHS. This was evident both in objective tests and in the subjective questionnaires. Nevertheless, an individual decision is required in each case as to which SSD therapy option is best for the patient. Above all, the patient's subjective impairment and expectations should be included in the decision-making process.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33566175
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06634-7
pii: 10.1007/s00405-021-06634-7
pmc: PMC8739280
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
149-158Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Jan;38(1):11-18
pubmed: 27846038
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Feb;36(2):209-19
pubmed: 25502451
Int J Audiol. 2004 Feb;43(2):85-99
pubmed: 15035561
Laryngoscope. 2009 Apr;119(4):713-20
pubmed: 19266579
Otol Neurotol. 2006 Feb;27(2):172-82
pubmed: 16436986
Ear Hear. 2017 Mar/Apr;38(2):159-173
pubmed: 28067750
Ear Hear. 2012 Sep-Oct;33(5):595-603
pubmed: 22588268
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Apr;38(4):473-483
pubmed: 28196001
Otol Neurotol. 2011 Jan;32(1):39-47
pubmed: 21068690
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Feb;36(2):e58-62
pubmed: 25548890
Am J Otol. 1997 Nov;18(6 Suppl):S83
pubmed: 9391610
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Aug;271(8):2119-26
pubmed: 24096818
HNO. 2011 May;59(5):437-46
pubmed: 21505923
Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(6):391-398
pubmed: 28319951
Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14(3):163-71
pubmed: 19005250
HNO. 2008 Oct;56(10):1020-4
pubmed: 17879076
Laryngoscope. 2015 Jan;125(1):218-26
pubmed: 25124297
Otol Neurotol. 2003 Jan;24(1):73-8
pubmed: 12544032
Ear Hear. 1991 Oct;12(5):355-7
pubmed: 1783240
Ear Hear. 2016 Sep-Oct;37(5):495-507
pubmed: 27232073
J Speech Hear Disord. 1967 Nov;32(4):336-43
pubmed: 6074893
HNO. 2017 Aug;65(Suppl 2):98-108
pubmed: 28188428
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2019 Apr;80(2):132-138
pubmed: 30931220
Ear Hear. 2015 May-Jun;36(3):e93-8
pubmed: 25474416
Otol Neurotol. 2020 Jul;41(6):727-735
pubmed: 32068694