Audiological and subjective benefit with a new adhesive bone conduction hearing aid in children with congenital unilateral microtia and atresia.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the audiological benefits and subjective satisfaction in using a new adhesive bone conduction hearing aid in children with congenital unilateral microtia and atresia. METHODS: We evaluated the effectiveness of the hearing aid using the sound field hearing threshold, speech recognition ability under quiet and noise, and subjective questionnaires in 13 children (5-15 years old). RESULTS: The mean sound field hearing threshold significantly improved with a gain of 25.4 ± 4.9 dB HL. Mean word recognition scores were ameliorated in quiet and noise by 1.9 ± 2.5% and 7.3 ± 5.3%, respectively. Speech recognition ability results in noise varied; when the speech signal and noise were presented from the front, the mean speech recognition ability improved by 2.5 ± 1.6 dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). When noise was presented towards the normal hearing side, speech understanding was improved by 2.9 ± 1.6 dB SNR. When the speech signal was presented from the atretic side with noise from the normal hearing side, an improvement of 5.7 ± 3.4 dB SNR (p < 0.001) was noted. However, when noise was presented towards the newly aided atretic ear, no statistical significance was found. The questionnaire results indicated that the hearing device provided benefits in speech recognition ability in different complex situations, with high satisfaction rates. CONCLUSION: The adhesive bone conduction hearing aid investigated here offers a concealed and aesthetic method to improve hearing in children with congenital unilateral microtia and atresia during their early years, with high subjective satisfaction.

Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children.

Objectives: The young population requires early rehabilitation of their hearing loss for normal cognitive, auditive hence social development. All of which, in turn, may have an impact on quality of life (QoL). This study aims to evaluate QoL between two different bone conduction (BC) hearing devices: a noninvasive adhesive hearing aid (Adhear [ADH]) vs. an active transcutaneous implant (Bonebridge [BB]). Methods: This study composed of 12 BB and 15 ADH users. Pure tone as well as speech in noise and quiet measurements were evaluated and compared to the Assessment in QoL questionnaire (AQoL-6d). Results: Freefield results showed significant improvements for both devices compared to the unaided condition (p < .0001). Emphasis needs to be drawn on the different unaided level of conductive hearing loss as well as the indication range for both evaluated device groups: the ADH subjects exhibited a mean BC value of 9.50 ± 7.96 dB HL (the indication range up to 25 dB) and the BB subjects a mean of 23.33 ± 25.66 dB HL (the indication range up to 45 dB). Speech perception in quiet and in noise was significantly improved (p < .05; p < .001, respectively). QoL was significantly improved for both treatments (p < .05) but was not different among the devices, and the values were similar to their normal hearing, age, and sex-matched control group. High correlations were found between QoL utility scores and improved PTA4 in the aided condition (r 2 = .8839 and .7810 for BB and ADH, respectively). Conclusion: Our results show that both devices offer significant beneficial audiological rehabilitations with significantly increased QoL. However, the underlying condition and the unaided degree of hearing loss, hence the required higher stimulation must be the deciding factor when opting for a hearing device, and this should be independent of age. Level of evidence: 2c.