Outcomes of Bone Anchored Hearing Aid Implant at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC)

  • Suhana Abdul Rahim
  • Bee-See Goh
  • Safinaz Zainor
  • Roslenda Abdul Rahman
  • Asma Abdullah
Original Article

Abstract

The cross sectional study was conducted in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC), Malaysia from August 2012 to December 2013. All patients implanted with in UKMMC from December 2001 until December 2012 was included. Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaires and UKMMC questionnaires were used as part of the assessment tool. The GBI is a scoring which measures the change in health status produced by surgical interventions. UKMMC questionnaires was invented by our department to assess questions related to social and life style of patients and also the cosmetic perspective Baha implant and other daily related activities. The audiological assessment was assessed using hearing aid gain threshold. Complication with regards to skin reaction was graded using Holger Skin Classification. A total of 40 patients underwent Baha implant were recruited but only 35 patients fulfilled the criteria and included in this study for analysis. Age of patients ranged from 5 year old to 38 year old, with median of 13 years old. There were 22 patients (62.8%) were male and 13 patients (37.1%) were females. Almost all cases were canal atresia except one adult patient was a case of bilateral chronic discharging ear with chronic irritation with ear mould. Majority of patients 21 (60%) have hearing level of moderate to severe hearing loss (40–89 dB) and 14 patients (40%) have mild to moderate hearing loss (20–39 dB). The level of hearing was retested post operatively. All of the patients have improvement in their aided hearing with the range of 10–25 dBL which is statistically significant at p value of <0.05. The GBI was scored positively in all subscales. Majority of patients (91.4%) used BAHA more than 4 h per day and 88.6% agreed that BAHA is cosmetically acceptable. All patients experienced some form of skin irritation (Holger grade 1–2) however only 20% required surgical intervention. All our patients have range of 10–25 dB improvement of their aided hearing which is statistically significant at p value of <0.05. BAHA has been proven to show significant benefit in audiological improvement and quality of life.

Keywords

Baha implant Bone conduction hearing aid Conductive hearing loss Quality of life 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by Secretariat for Medical Research and Innovation, UKM Medical Center (Grant number: FF- 181-2013).

Compliance with Ethical Standard

Conflict of interest

All the authors stated above declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of Research Ethic Committee Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (RECUKM) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Formal consent obtained from each of the individuals in this study.

Informed Consent

Informed consent together with formal consent were obtained from all individual participants for whom indentifying information is included in this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Tjellstrom A, Granstrom G (1994) Long-term follow-up with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a review of the first 100 patients between 1977 and 1985. Ear Nose Throat J 73(2):112–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lekue A, Lassaletta L, Sánchez-Camón I et al (2013) Quality of life in patients implanted with the BAHA device depending on the aetiology. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 64(1):17–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dutt SN, McDermott AL, Jelbert A, Reid AP, Proops DW (2002) The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 28:7–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jereczek-Fossa BA, Zarowski A, Milani F, Orecchia R (2003) Radiotherapy-induced ear toxicity. Cancer Treat Rev 29(5):417–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu CC, Chadha NK, Bance M, Hong P (2013) The current practice trends in pediatric bone-anchored hearing aids in Canada: a national clinical and surgical practice survey. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 42:43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flynn MC, Hedin A, Halvarsson G, Good T, Sadeghi A (2012) Hearing performance benefits of a programmable power baha® sound processor with a directional microphone for patients with a mixed hearing loss. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 5(Suppl 1):S76–S81CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLarnon CM, Davison T, Johnson IJ (2004) Bone-anchored hearing aid: comparison of benefit by patient subgroups. Laryngoscope 114(5):942–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Håkansson BE, Carlsson PU, Tjellström A et al (1994) The bone-anchored hearing aid: principal design and audiometric results. Ear Nose Throat J 73(9):670–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Håkansson B, Lidén G, Tjellström A, Ringdahl A et al (1990) Ten years of experience with the Swedish bone-anchored hearing system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 151:1–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arunachalan PS, Kilby D, Meikle D, Davison T, Johnson IJ (2000) Bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life assess by Glasgow benefit inventory. Clin Otolaryngol 25(6):570–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gillett D, Fairley JW, Chandrashaker TS, Bean A, Gonzalez J (2006) Bone anchored hearing aid: results of the first eight years of programme in a district general hospital, assessed by the Glasgow benefit inventory. J Laryngol Otol 120(7):537–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDermott AL, Dutt SN, Tziambazis E, Reid AP, Proops DW (2002) Disability, handicap and benefit analysis with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Glasgow hearing aid benefits and difference profiles. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 28:29–36Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faber HT, de Wolf MJ, de Rooy JW, Hol MK, Cremers CW, Mylanus EA (2009) Bone-anchored hearing aid implant location in relation to skin reactions. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135(8):742–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asma A, Ubaidah MA, Hasan SS, Wan Fazlina WH, Lim BY, Saim L et al (2013) Surgical outcomes of bone anchored hearing aid surgery: 10 years experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 65(3):251–254CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scholz M, Eufinger H, Anders A, Illerhaus B, Konig M, Schmieder K et al (2003) Intracerebral abscess after abutment change of a bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA). Otol Neurotol 24(6):896–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurz A, Flynn M, Caversaccio M, Kompis M (2014) Speech understanding with a new implant technology: a comparative study with a new nonskin penetrating Baha system. Biomed Res Int 2014:416205CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suhana Abdul Rahim
    • 1
  • Bee-See Goh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Safinaz Zainor
    • 1
  • Roslenda Abdul Rahman
    • 1
  • Asma Abdullah
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical CentreKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Institute of Ear, Hearing and Speech (Institute-HEARS)Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations