Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the bone-anchored hearing aids Baha Compact and Baha Divino

Long-term data of the new transcutaneous partially implantable bone conduction hearing system Osia®

PURPOSE

The new active transcutaneous partially implantable osseointegrated system Cochlear™ Osia® System is indicated in case of conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL/MHL) with a maximum average bone conduction hearing loss of 55 dB, or in single-sided deafness (SSD). The implant directly stimulates the bone via a piezoelectric transducer and is directed by an external sound processor. We conducted a monocentric retrospective longitudinal within-subject clinical study at our tertiary academic referral center. The aim was to investigate long-term data (2017-2021) on audiological outcomes and hearing-related quality of life for the Osia system.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2020, 22 adults (18: CHL/MHL; 3: SSD) were implanted with the Osia100 implant; seven received bilateral implants. As of 10/2020, the sound processor was upgraded to Osia 2.

RESULTS

Mean Osia system use by 04/2021 was 30.9 ± 8.6 months (range 17-40 months). Unaided bone conduction thresholds were unchanged postoperatively. One patient had to be explanted because of prolonged wound infection. Aided hearing thresholds were significantly lower compared to the unaided thresholds preoperatively, along with a marked increase in speech recognition in quiet. Speech processor upgrade resulted in a stable benefit. Patients with CHL/MHL and SSD showed a similar improvement in self-rated hearing performance revealed by SSQ, APHAB, and HUI questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

The Osia system is a safe, effective and sustainable option for treatment of conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness.

Psychosocial outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment: An overview of the relevant literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify the psychosocial assessments utilized with individuals with conductive and/or mixed hearing loss as part of a broader effort by the Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (AURONET) group to develop a core set of patient-centred outcome measures.

DESIGN

A review of articles published between 2006 and 2016 was completed. Included studies had more than three adult participants, were available in English, and reported a psychosocial outcome from any treatment of mixed and/or conductive hearing loss.

STUDY SAMPLE

Sixty-six articles from seven databases.

RESULTS

Sixty-six articles met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Within this set, 15 unique psychosocial or patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) were identified, with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) being the most frequently dispensed. Five of the fifteen were only administered in one study. In-house questionnaires (IHQs) were reported in 19 articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 66 (22%) of the 300 articles with outcomes contained a PRO. Some of the mostly frequently employed PROs (e.g., APHAB) were judged to include only social items and no psychological items. Lack of PRO standardization and the use of IHQs make psychosocial comparisons across treatments in this population difficult for patients, clinicians and stakeholders.

Efficacy of Auditory Implants for Patients With Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss Depends on Implant Center

INTRODUCTION

Although from a technological point of view, progress is impressive, most implantable hearing devices for conductive or mixed hearing loss have a limited capacity. These devices all bypass the impaired middle ear; therefore, the desired amplification (gain) should be based on the cochlear hearing loss (component) only. The aim of the study is to review the literature with regard to accomplished gain with current implantable devices.

METHOD

Thirty-one articles could be included. Aided thresholds were compared with prescribed values, based on cochlear hearing loss (bone-conduction thresholds), according to the well-validated NAL rule.

RESULTS

For the majority of the studies, NAL targets were not met. Variation in accomplished gain between implant teams was unacceptably large, largely independent of the type of device that was used. NAL targets were best met at 2 kHz, with worse results at the other frequencies.

CONCLUSION

Large variations in reported results were found, which primarily depended on implant center. Based on the analyses, a pragmatic fitting procedure is proposed which should minimize the differences between implant centres.

Audiological outcome measures with the BONEBRIDGE transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: impact of noise, reverberation and signal processing features

Objective: To assess the performance of an active transcutaneous implantable-bone conduction device (TI-BCD), and to evaluate the benefit of device digital signal processing (DSP) features in challenging listening environments.Design: Participants were tested at 1- and 3-month post-activation of the TI-BCD. At each session, aided and unaided phoneme perception was assessed using the Ling-6 test. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) and quality ratings of speech and music samples were collected in noisy and reverberant environments, with and without the DSP features. Self-assessment of the device performance was obtained using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire.Study sample: Six adults with conductive or mixed hearing loss.Results: Average SRTs were 2.9 and 12.3 dB in low and high reverberation environments, respectively, which improved to -1.7 and 8.7 dB, respectively with the DSP features. In addition, speech quality ratings improved by 23 points with the DSP features when averaged across all environmental conditions. Improvement scores on APHAB scales revealed a statistically significant aided benefit.Conclusions: Noise and reverberation significantly impacted speech recognition performance and perceived sound quality. DSP features (directional microphone processing and adaptive noise reduction) significantly enhanced subjects' performance in these challenging listening environments.

Comparison of two different bone anchored hearing instruments: Baha-5 vs Ponto-plus

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, there is no study comparing Ponto Plus^® (Oticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden) and Baha^® 5 (Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AG, Mölnlycke, Sweden) available in the literature.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to compare the performance of the Baha 5 with the Ponto Plus device in terms of speech understanding in quiet and in noise. In addition, to determine statistically whether or not the difference between the abutment systems created any variation in terms of skin reaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty bone-anchored hearing instrument users, ten in each group, were evaluated for speech understanding in quiet and several signal-to-noise ratios using the Turkish Matrix Test in a two-speaker setup. The Holger classifications were also reviewed to determine adverse skin reactions.

RESULTS

It was revealed that the hearing results of both devices were similar and, when the skin reactions were compared, there was no statistically significant difference between the two-implant systems.

CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE

Because of the similar results of the groups, it can be interpreted as the key different device features such as the size, weight, colour alternatives, and the ease of use of the devices might be important in terms of device preference.

Speech Understanding and Sound Localization with a New Nonimplantable Wearing Option for Baha

Objective

To measure the audiological benefit of the Baha SoundArc, a recently introduced nonimplantable wearing option for bone conduction sound processor, and to compare it with the known softband wearing option in subjects with normal cochlear function and a purely conductive bilateral hearing loss.

Methods

Both ears of 15 normal hearing subjects were occluded for the time of the measurement, yielding an average unaided threshold of 49 dB HL (0.5 – 4 kHz). Soundfield thresholds, speech understanding in quiet and in noise, and sound localization were measured in unaided conditions and with 1 or 2 Baha 5 sound processors mounted on either a softband or a SoundArc device.

Results

Soundfield thresholds and speech reception thresholds were improved by 19.5 to 24.8 dB (p<.001), when compared to the unaided condition. Speech reception thresholds in noise were improved by 3.7 to 4.7 dB (p<.001). Using 2 sound processors rather than one improved speech understanding in noise for speech from the direction of the 2^nd device and sound localization error by 23° to 28°. No statistically significant difference was found between the SoundArc and the softband wearing options in any of the tests.

Conclusions

Bone conduction sound processor mounted on a SoundArc or on a softband resulted in considerable improvements in hearing and speech understanding in subjects with a simulated, purely conductive, and bilateral hearing loss. No significant difference between the 2 wearing options was found. Using 2 sound processors improves sound localization and speech understanding in noise in certain spatial settings.

Mitigation of informational masking in individuals with single-sided deafness by integrated bone conduction hearing aids

OBJECTIVES

To confirm an increased susceptibility to informational masking among individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD). To demonstrate a reduction in informational masking when SSD is treated with an integrated bone conduction hearing aid (IBC). To identify the acoustic cues that contribute to IBC-aided masking release. To determine the effects of device experience on the IBC advantage.

DESIGN

Informational masking was evaluated with the coordinate-response measure. Participants performed the task by reporting color and number coordinates that changed randomly within target sentences. The target sentences were presented in free field accompanied by zero to three distracting sentences. Target and distracting sentences were spoken by different talkers and originated from different source locations, creating two sources of information for auditory streaming. Susceptibility to informational masking was inferred from the error rates of unaided SSD patients relative to normal controls. These baseline measures were derived by testing inexperienced IBC users without the device on the day of their initial fitting. The benefits of IBC-aided listening were assessed by measuring the aided performance of users who had at least 3 months' device experience. The acoustic basis of the listening advantage was isolated by correlating response errors with the voice pitch and location of distracting sentences. The effects of learning on cue effectiveness were evaluated by comparing the error rates of experienced and inexperienced users.

RESULTS

Unaided SSD participants (inexperienced users) performed as well as normal controls when tested without distracting sentences but produced significantly higher error rates when tested with distracting sentences. Most errors involved responding with coordinates that were contained in distracting sentences. This increased susceptibility to informational masking was significantly reduced when experienced IBC users were tested with the device. The listening advantage was most strongly correlated with the availability of voice pitch cues, although performance was also influenced by the location of distracting sentences. Directional asymmetries appear to be dictated by location-dependent cues that are derived from the distinctive transmission characteristics of IBC stimulation. Experienced users made better use of these cues than inexperienced users.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that informational masking is a significant source of communication impairment among individuals with SSD. Despite the lateralization of auditory function, unaided SSD subjects experience informational masking when distractors occur in either the deaf or normal spatial hemifield. Restoration of aural sensitivity in the deaf hemifield with an IBC enhances speech intelligibility under complex listening conditions, presumably by providing additional sound-segregation cues that are derived from voice pitch and spatial location. The optimal use of these cues is not immediate, but a significant listening advantage is observed after 3 months of unstructured use.

Speech understanding with a new implant technology: a comparative study with a new nonskin penetrating Baha system

OBJECTIVE

To compare hearing and speech understanding between a new, nonskin penetrating Baha system (Baha Attract) to the current Baha system using a skin-penetrating abutment.

METHODS

Hearing and speech understanding were measured in 16 experienced Baha users. The transmission path via the abutment was compared to a simulated Baha Attract transmission path by attaching the implantable magnet to the abutment and then by adding a sample of artificial skin and the external parts of the Baha Attract system. Four different measurements were performed: bone conduction thresholds directly through the sound processor (BC Direct), aided sound field thresholds, aided speech understanding in quiet, and aided speech understanding in noise.

RESULTS

The simulated Baha Attract transmission path introduced an attenuation starting from approximately 5 dB at 1000 Hz, increasing to 20-25 dB above 6000 Hz. However, aided sound field threshold shows smaller differences and aided speech understanding in quiet and in noise does not differ significantly between the two transmission paths.

CONCLUSION

The Baha Attract system transmission path introduces predominately high frequency attenuation. This attenuation can be partially compensated by adequate fitting of the speech processor. No significant decrease in speech understanding in either quiet or in noise was found.

Effectiveness of the directional microphone in the Baha® Divino™

BACKGROUND

Patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) experience great difficulty listening to speech in noisy environments. A directional microphone (DM) could potentially improve speech recognition in this difficult listening environment. It is well known that DMs in behind-the-ear (BTE) and custom hearing aids can provide a greater signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in comparison to an omnidirectional microphone (OM) to improve speech recognition in noise for persons with hearing impairment. Studies examining the DM in bone anchored auditory osseointegrated implants (Baha), however, have been mixed, with little to no benefit reported for the DM compared to an OM.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the mean reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) in noise between the OM and DM in the Baha® Divino™. The RTS of these two microphone modes was measured utilizing two loudspeaker arrays (speech from 0° and noise from 180° or a diffuse eight-loudspeaker array) and with the better ear open or closed with an earmold impression and noise attenuating earmuff. Subjective benefit was assessed using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) to compare unaided and aided (Divino OM and DM combined) problem scores.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A repeated measures design was utilized, with each subject counterbalanced to each of the eight treatment levels for three independent variables: (1) microphone (OM and DM), (2) loudspeaker array (180° and diffuse), and (3) better ear (open and closed).

STUDY SAMPLE

Sixteen subjects with USNHL currently utilizing the Baha were recruited from Washington University's Center for Advanced Medicine and the surrounding area.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Subjects were tested at the initial visit if they entered the study wearing the Divino or after at least four weeks of acclimatization to a loaner Divino. The RTS was determined utilizing Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in the R-Space™ system, and subjective benefit was determined utilizing the APHAB. A three-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a paired samples t-test were utilized to analyze results of the HINT and APHAB, respectively.

RESULTS

Results revealed statistically significant differences within microphone (p < 0.001; directional advantage of 3.2 dB), loudspeaker array (p = 0.046; 180° advantage of 1.1 dB), and better ear conditions (p < 0.001; open ear advantage of 4.9 dB). Results from the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit for the Divino relative to unaided on the subscales of Ease of Communication (EC) (p = 0.037), Background Noise (BN) (p < 0.001), and Reverberation (RV) (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The Divino's DM provides a statistically significant improvement in speech recognition in noise compared to the OM for subjects with USNHL. Therefore, it is recommended that audiologists consider selecting a Baha with a DM to provide improved speech recognition performance in noisy listening environments.

Better performance with bone-anchored hearing aid than acoustic devices in patients with severe air-bone gap

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

A study performed in the 1990s with analogue linear hearing aids showed that in patients with mixed hearing loss and an air-bone gap that exceeded 25 to 30 dB, speech perception was better with a bone-anchored hearing aid (Baha) than with a conventional behind-the-ear (BTE) device. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether this conclusion applies to today's digital BTEs with feedback cancellation and whether the crossover point still occurs at an air-bone gap of 25 to 30 dB.

STUDY DESIGN

Case control.

METHODS

Experienced unilateral Baha users with the latest digital Baha processors were fitted with a powerful BTE with feedback cancellation. After an acclimatization period of 4 weeks, aided thresholds and speech recognition scores were determined and compared to those recorded previously with the Baha. To obtain patients' opinions, a disability-specific questionnaire was used. Participants comprised 16 subjects with bilateral mixed hearing loss participated

RESULTS

Audiometric and speech recognition data showed similar trends to those described previously, but the crossover point had shifted to an air-bone gap of 30 to 35 dB. In the questionnaire, the BTE was rated higher than the Baha, except by the patients with an air-bone gap that exceeded an average of 45 dB.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mixed hearing loss whose air-bone gap exceeded 35 dB, speech recognition is likely to be better with a Baha than with a BTE. Therefore, the Baha should receive greater consideration when mixed hearing loss is combined with a significant air-bone gap, even when there are no contraindications for BTEs.