Open AccessUnilateral Sensorineural Deafness: BAHA vs TransEar Device
Author(s) -
Rivas Adriana,
Bernal Elizabeth,
Usaquen Francy,
Forero Victor H.,
Rivas Alejandro,
Rivas Jose A.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
otolaryngology–head and neck surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.232
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1097-6817
pISSN - 0194-5998
DOI - 10.1177/0194599811415823a316
Subject(s) - cosmesis , medicine , audiology , quality of life (healthcare) , hearing aid , patient satisfaction , sensorineural hearing loss , implant , dentistry , hearing loss , surgery , nursing
Objective Compare the audiological and quality of life assessment in 2 groups of patients: users of BAHA and users of TransEar devices. Method Retrospective study of 20 patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Group number 1, 10 patients using TransEar. Group number 2, 10 patients using BAHA. Prefitting Pure Tone Average (PTA) 0.25 to 4kHz compared with postfitting PTA 0.25‐ 3kHz between groups. Survey results of the Hearing Device Satisfaction Scale tool. Results Functional hearing gain was observed in both groups. The BAHA system showed higher hearing benefit than the TransEar system. When mean thresholds of each system were compared, mean functional response was 41dBSPL with the TransEar and 25dBSPL with the BAHA. The satisfaction level of sound category was slightly better for the BAHA device. TransEar is preferred over BAHA in fitting, cosmesis, and management issues. BAHA showed better scores for quality of life aspects. Conclusion In this group of patients, higher hearing benefit of osseointegrated implant regarding the effectiveness over the intracanal system was observed. When satisfaction level is analyzed related to fitting, management, and quality of life, an intracanal device is preferred.