Sensitivity and specificity of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB)

A Novel Representation of Audiological and Subjective Findings for Acoustical, Bone Conduction and Direct Drive Hearing Solutions

Background: The benefit of hearing rehabilitation is often measured using audiological tests or subjective questionnaires/interviews. It is important to consider both aspects in order to evaluate the overall benefits. Currently, there is no standardized method for reporting combined audiological and patient reported subjective outcome measures in clinical practice. Therefore, this study focuses on showing the patient’s audiological, as well as subjective outcomes in one graph using data from an existing study. Method: The present paper illustrated a graph presenting data on four quadrants with audiological and subjective findings. These quadrants represented speech comprehension in quiet (unaided vs. aided) as WRS% at 65 dB SPL, speech recognition in noise (unaided vs. aided) as SRT dB SNR, sound field threshold (unaided vs. aided) as PTA4 in dB HL, wearing time and patient satisfaction questionnaire results. Results: As an example, the HEARRING graph in this paper represented audiological and subjective datasets on a single patient level or a cohort of patients for an active bone conduction hearing implant solution. The graph offered the option to follow the user’s performance in time. Conclusion: The HEARRING graph allowed representation of a combination of audiological measures with patient reported outcomes in one single graph, indicating the overall benefit of the intervention. In addition, the correlation and consistency between some results (e.g., aided threshold and aided WRS) can be better visualized. Those users who lacked performance benefits on one or more parameters and called for further insight could be visually identified.

Comparison of Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) Questionnaires in a Large Cohort of Self-Reported Normal-Hearing Adult Listeners

The Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) are two most commonly used questionnaires in the audiology clinic to assess an individual's self-perception of their hearing ability. Here, we present the outcomes of these two questionnaires on a large group of self-reported normal hearing adult listeners. A total of 254 self-reported normal-hearing younger and older adults completed the SSQ and the APHAB questionnaire. The younger participants completed the questionnaires through Qualtrics, whereas the older participants completed the questionnaire through Qualtrics and a traditional pen-and-paper method. The younger listeners perceived a higher ability compared to the older adults in all the SSQ subscales (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities) and reported a lesser frequency of the problems in three of the four APHAB subscales (Ease of communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise). There was no significant difference in the frequency of the problems reported in the Aversiveness subscale. Self-reported normal-hearing listeners do not rate their listening ability at the top of the ability scale. Additionally, the large dataset presented here has a potential normative value for the SSQ and the APHAB questionnaires for self-reported normal-hearing adult listeners.

Implantation of two generations of Bonebridge after mastoid obliteration with bioactive glass S53P4

PURPOSE

After radical surgery for chronic cholesteatoma (CWD mastoidectomy), patients have the option to have the posterior wall of their external auditory canal surgically reconstructed with S53P4 bioactive glass. The procedure eliminates some of the restrictions related to having a postoperative cavity and extends the options for a hearing prosthesis. If classic reconstruction is not possible and a hearing aid is not used, we suggest use of a Bonebridge implant.

METHODS

This study describes, over 18 months of follow-up, 16 patients after a two-stage surgical procedure: obliteration of the mastoid cavity with bioactive glass followed by Bonebridge implantation. There were 7 patients who received the first generation implant (BCI 601) and 9 who used the second (BCI 602). Before and after implantation, pure tone audiometry, sound field thresholds, and free-field audiometry were performed. Speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. Subjective assessment of benefits was done using the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire.

RESULTS

During the observation period, no serious complications were found. The study demonstrated the safety and validity of the procedures and confirmed the safety of using S53P4 bioactive glass in otosurgery (antibacterial effect, nonrecurrence of cholesteatoma, and no effect on the inner ear). The audiological benefits expected from using the Bonebridge implant processor were also confirmed.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that, after reconstructing the posterior wall of the external auditory canal with bioactive glass, two-stage implantation of a Bonebridge implant in a typical site is a safe solution for patients who have difficult anatomical conditions following their CWD mastoidectomy.

Evaluation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 active bone conductive implant in adults: efficacy and stability of audiological, surgical, and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

(1) To assess the effectiveness and safety of a bone-conduction implant, the Bonebridge BCI 602, in adults with conductive or mixed hearing loss. (2) To investigate whether the Bonebridge BCI 602 is at least as effective as the Bonebridge BCI 601 in such patients.

METHODS

The study group included 42 adults who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients underwent Bonebridge BCI 602 implant surgery. Before and after implantation, pure-tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Polish Monosyllabic Word Test. Speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. Subjective assessment of benefits was done using the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire.

RESULTS

The APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after BCI 602 implantation. Both word recognition in quiet and speech reception threshold in noise were significantly better after BCI 602 implantation and remained stable for at least 12 months. A significant advantage of the device is a reduced time for surgery while maintaining safety. In this study, the mean time for BCI 602 implantation was 28.3 min ± 9.4.

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation Bonebridge BCI 602 implant is an effective hearing rehabilitation device for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Patient satisfaction and audiological results confirm its efficacy and safety. Its new shape and dimensions allow it to be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient or difficult anatomical conditions. The new BCI 602 implant is as effective as its predecessor, the BCI 601.

[Correlation between the APHAB questionnaire and the Freiburg monosyllabic test without + with noise]

BACKGROUND

Questionnaires, e. g. the APHAB, and speech-audiometry are the most used elements in measuring the success of hearing aid fitting (HAF). This study investigates the correlations between the results of the Freiburg monosyllabic word test without and with noise (FBE, FBE-S) and the results of the APHAB before and after HAF.

METHODS

Data of the FBE, the FBE-S, and the APHAB, generated within HAF of 156 subjects were analyzed. After exclusion of a normal distribution of the data, Spearman's correlation and Cohen's effect size were determined.

RESULTS

73 (46.8 %) of the 156 subjects were females, and 83 (53.2 %) males. No significant correlation could be found between the EC-, the RV-, and the cumulative ECBNRV-subscale and the benefit of HAF in the FBE and FBE-S (EC: ease of communication, BN: background noise, RV: reverberation). Most of the remaining coefficients of correlation had a weak positive effect size. A middle positive effect size could only be demonstrated for 6 combinations, for the EC-subscale mostly.

CONCLUSION

The not strong effect sizes could assume that the results in speech-audiometry and the APHAB are not independent and complementing each other as parameters of hearing loss and benefit in HAF. The effect size could be explained by individually different possibilities for the compensation of hearing loss.

[Possibilities to predict the success of an individual hearing aid fitting using the APHAB]

BACKGROUND

Since 2012, the APHAB is part of the quality agreement for statutory insured patients in hearing aid fitting (HAF). So far, individual results could be interpreted by using percentile curves only, but not for the improvement quotient and the cumulated benefit. The presented study should close this gap. Moreover, it should be clarified if an individual constancy within percentile exists.

METHODS

Using the data of 6861 hearing aid fitted patients from a database, we calculated the benefit by improvement quotient and cumulated benefit for different age-classes and percentile-groups and presented by a heatmap. Individual constancy of percentile would be calculated using Spearman's rank correlation.

RESULTS

The average benefit was 21.41. The average of the improvement quotient was 41.01. It was significantly higher (44.36 %) in subjects younger than the average (27.26 years ± 11.86) than in the elderly (37.66 %). It decreased in cases of lower APHAB-scores before HAF concerning the percentile-group, ranging from 23.22 % to 52.07 %. Spearman's rank coefficient for the APHAB benefit was 0.285, Cohen's effect size was small. The correlation between the APHAB-score before HAF and the cumulated benefit was 0.582 and the improvement quotient was 0.270.

CONCLUSIONS

An individual constancy within percentile before and after HAF was not detectable. Nevertheless, some relationships of the improvement quotient and the age resp. percentile-groups could be demonstrated. The benefit of HAF was less in older subjects with lower APHAB-scores and best in young subjects with higher APHAB-scores before HAF.

Self-Rated Benefits of Auditory Performance after Bonebridge Implantation in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss, or Single-Sided Deafness

The Bonebridge implant can be a satisfactory solution for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL or MHL), or with single-sided deafness (SSD). The aim of the study was to assess patients’ self-reported benefits with the Bonebridge and characterize the relationships between pre-implantation audiometric data, auditory functioning, and satisfaction after implantation. A focus was to see whether different types of hearing loss were associated with particular benefits. The study sample consisted of 81 patients. Procedures comprised pure tone audiometry before implantation, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and a structured interview asking about satisfaction. Statistically significant improvements after implantation were found in all groups (CHL, MHL, SSD) on the APHAB questionnaire. In the structured interview, patients with SSD were the least satisfied. No significant correlation was found between pre-operative air-bone gap and bone conduction thresholds or with APHAB score. Bonebridge implantation is beneficial to patients with CHL or MHL, or with SSD. Assessment of patients for Bonebridge implantation is complex, and audiometric data should be complemented by patient-reported outcomes to provide deeper insight into their individual needs and attitudes.

The Bonebridge BCI 602 Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant in Children: Objective and Subjective Benefits

Background: the Bonebridge hearing implant is an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant suitable for various types of hearing loss. It was first launched in 2012 as the BCI 601, with a newer internal part (BCI 602) released in 2019. With the new size and shape, the BCI 602 can be used in patients previously excluded due to insufficient anatomical conditions, especially in patients with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear. Objectives: the purpose of this study is to evaluate the objective and subjective benefits of the new Bonebridge BCI 602 in children who have hearing impairment due to conductive or mixed hearing loss. Safety and effectiveness of the device was assessed. Methods: the study group included 22 children aged 8–18 years (mean age 14.7 years) who had either conductive or mixed hearing loss. All patients were implanted unilaterally with the new Bonebridge BCI 602 implant. Pure tone audiometry, speech recognition tests (in quiet and noise), and free-field audiometry were performed before and after implantation. Word recognition scores were evaluated using the Demenko and Pruszewicz Polish Monosyllabic Word Test, and speech reception thresholds in noise were assessed using the Polish Sentence Matrix Test. The subjective assessment of benefits was carried outusing the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Results: after implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 all patients showed a statistically significant improvement in hearing and speech understanding. The mean word recognition score (WRS) changed from 12.1% before implantation to 87.3% after 6 months. Mean speech reception threshold (SRT) before implantation was +4.79 dB SNR and improved to −1.29 dB SNR after 6 months. All patients showed stable postoperative results. The APHAB questionnaire showed that difficulties in hearing decreased after implantation, with a statistically significant improvement in global score. Pre-operative scores (M = 35.7) were significantly worse than post-operative scores at 6 months (M = 25.7). Conclusions: the present study confirms that the Bonebridge BCI 602 is an innovative and effective solution, especially for patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss due to anatomical ear defects. The Bonebridge BCI 602 system provides valuable and stable audiological and surgical benefits. Subjective assessment also confirms the effectiveness of the BCI 602. The BCI 602 offers the same amplification as the BCI601, but with a smaller size. The smaller dimensions make it an effective treatment option for a wider group of patients, especially children with congenital defects of the outer and middle ear.

Implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 after Mastoid Obliteration with S53P4 Bioactive Glass: A Safe Method of Treating Difficult Anatomical Conditions-Preliminary Results

This study presents the preliminary results of a new otosurgical method in patients after canal wall down (CWD) surgery; it involves the implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 implant after obliteration of the mastoid cavity with S53P4 bioactive glass. The study involved eight adult patients who had a history of chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma in one or both ears and who had had prior radical surgery. The mean follow-up period was 12 months, with routine follow-up visits according to the schedule. The analysis had two aspects: a surgical aspect in terms of healing, development of bacterial flora, the impact on the inner ear or labyrinth, recurrence of cholesteatoma, and possible postoperative complications (firstly, after obliteration of the mastoid cavity with S53P4 bioactive glass, then after implantation). The second was an audiological aspect which assessed audiometric results and the patient’s satisfaction based on questionnaires. During the follow-up period, we did not notice any serious postoperative complications. Studies demonstrated significantly improved hearing thresholds and speech recognition in quiet and noise using the Bonebridge BCI 602. Data collected after six months of use showed improved audiological thresholds and patient satisfaction. Based on the preliminary results, we believe that the proposed two-stage surgical method using bioactive glass S53P4 is a safe and effective way of implanting the Bonebridge BCI 602 in difficult anatomical conditions. This makes it possible to treat a larger group of patients with the device.

Binaural squelch effect in unilateral otosclerosis surgery: comparison of speech intelligibility in noise before-after surgery

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the speech intelligibility benefit in noise provided by stapedotomy in the treatment of unilateral otosclerosis.

METHODS

We enrolled adults suffering from unilateral conductive hearing loss and followed them up until 9 months after surgery. The patients underwent a free field speech hearing evaluation using the French Matrix test before and after stapedotomy. Speech material was sent to the front of the patients (S0) and noise was presented either at the front (N0), or at the operated ear (N-90) or at the non-operated ear (N + 90). The speech intelligibility benefit in noise was assessed by comparing Squelch effect (SE), Head shadow effect (HS) and Binaural redundancy (BR) before and after surgery. SE was measured as the difference in speech reception thresholds (SRT) between S0N + 90 situations before and after surgery, HS as the difference in SRT between S0N + 90 and S0N-90 situations, and BR as the difference in SRT between S0N0 situations before and after surgery. In addition, two quality of life's questionnaires were completed by patients to evaluate their discomfort.

RESULTS

Among 25 patients, 19 were followed up during 9 months, 4 were excluded and 2 were lost for the following-up. Stapedotomy provided a restoration of SE of 3.7 dB SNR (p < 0.001) and a BR gain of 1.8 dB SNR (p < 0.001). HS did not show any statistical variation after surgery (p = 0.077). Finally, the questionnaires showed a residual hearing discomfort.

CONCLUSION

Stapedotomy provided a binaural benefit with the restoration of the SE and BR but which remained lower than in the normal-hearing population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The 07/02/2018 on Clinical.Trial.Gouv: NCT03587792.

Endoscopic-assisted pediatric transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant: how I do it

BACKGROUND

Conventional technique for transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implants surgery requires the elevation of a large retroauricular skin flap to expose the site of implantation, that may cause a large scar and the interruption of retroauricular vasculature.

METHODS

A less invasive, endoscopic-assisted modification of the surgical technique is described, which provides access to the implant site through two small skin incisions and the creation of a pocket in the retroauricular area.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic-assisted bone-anchored hearing implant surgery could be a viable option for transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery, especially for pediatric patients.

Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

PURPOSE

To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures.

METHODS

Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.

[Dependency of APHAB score in the ECu subscale on age, gender and subjective hearing loss : Hearing aid fitting in two subjective hearing loss groups]

OBJECTIVE

The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) determines subjective impairment by hearing loss in four situations before and after hearing aid fitting. The first part (APHAB_u) of the questionnaire can be used independently of hearing aid fitting. Previous research has demonstrated that the answers in the EC_u subscale for hearing under easy conditions are concentrated in two groups: one with subjectively better, one with subjectively worse hearing. This study aimed to investigate in a large collective whether there are differences between these two groups in terms of age, gender, and individual hearing loss.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of 1755 patients were analyzed, whose APHAB answers and pure-tone thresholds had been collected during hearing aid fitting. Group 1 had an average EC_u score ≤37.5%; in group 2 it was ≥67.5%. The individual hearing losses was determined. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U, χ², Spearman, and Pearson tests.

RESULTS

The 616 members of group 1 were significantly younger (68.7 vs. 73.0 years) and comprised more females (53.9 vs. 46.1%) than the 1139 members of group 2. Hearing was frequency specific in group 1, and hearing loss as classified using standard audiograms and according to the three-frequency table was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2, CONCLUSION: The distribution with two maximums in the EC_u subscale can be explained by individual differences in terms of age and hearing loss, in part also by gender. The lower absolute number of patients in group 1 could be explained by the still relatively late fitting of hearing aids in general.