Skip to main content Accessibility help

Can audiometric results predict qualitative hearing improvements in bone-anchored hearing aid recipients?

  • M L McNeil (a1), M Gulliver (a2), D P Morris (a1), F M Makki (a1) and M Bance (a1)...



Patients receiving a bone-anchored hearing aid have well-documented improvements in their quality of life and audiometric performance. However, the relationship between audiometric measurements and subjective improvement is not well understood.


Adult patients enrolled in the Nova Scotia bone-anchored hearing aid programme were identified. The pure tone average for fitting the sound-field threshold, as well as the better and worse hearing ear bone conduction and air conduction levels, were collected pre-operatively. Recipients were asked to complete the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire; their partners were asked to complete a pre- and post-bone anchored hearing aid fitting Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire.


Forty-eight patients who completed and returned the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire had partners who completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire. The results from the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire correlated with the sound-field hearing threshold post-bone-anchored hearing aid fitting and the pure tone average of the better hearing ear bone conduction (total Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale to the pre-operative better hearing ear air curve (r = 0.3); worse hearing ear air curve (r = 0.27); post-operative, bone-anchored hearing aid-aided sound-field thresholds (r = 0.35)). An improvement in sound-field threshold correlated only with spatial abilities. In the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire, there was no correlation between the subjective evaluation of each patient and their partner.


The subjective impressions of hearing aid recipients with regards to speech reception and the spatial qualities of hearing correlate well with pre-operative audiometric results. However, the overall magnitude of sound-field improvement predicts an improvement of spatial perception, but not other aspects of hearing, resulting in hearing aid recipients having strongly disparate subjective impressions when compared to those of their partners.


Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Dr M Bance, QEII Health Sciences Centre, 1278 Tower Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 2Y9, Canada Fax: +1 902 473 4345 E-mail:


Hide All
1Håkansson, B, Tjellström, A, Rosenhall, U, Carlsson, P. The bone-anchored hearing aid. Principle design and psychoacoustical evaluation. Acta Otolaryngol 1985;100:229–39
2Tjellström, A, Håkansson, B, Granström, G. Bone-anchored hearing aids: current status in adults and children. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2001;34:337–64
3Verstraeten, N, Zarowski, AJ, Somers, T, Riff, D, Offeciers, EF. Comparison of the audiologic results obtained with the bone-anchored hearing aid attached to the headband, the testband, and to the “snap” abutment. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:70–5
4Niparko, JK, Cox, KM, Lustig, LR. Comparison of the bone anchored hearing aid implantable hearing device with contralateral routing of offside signal amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:73–8
5Hodgetts, WE, Håkansson, BE, Hagler, P, Soli, S. A comparison of three approaches to verifying aided BAHA output. Int J Audiol 2010;49:286–95
6Sánchez-Camón, I, Lassaletta, L, Castro, A, Gavilán, J. Quality of life of patients with BAHA [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2007;58:316–20
7Arunachalam, PS, Kilby, D, Meikle, D, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid quality of life assessed by Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1260–3
8Gillett, D, Fairley, JW, Chandrashaker, TS, Bean, A, Gonzalez, J. Bone-anchored hearing aids: results of the first eight years of a programme in a district general hospital, assessed by the Glasgow benefit inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:537–42
9Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 2002;116(suppl 28):714
10Hol, MK, Spath, MA, Krabbe, PF, van der Pouw, CT, Snik, AF, Cremers, CW et al. The bone anchored hearing aid: quality-of-life assessment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:394–9
11McLarnon, CM, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: comparison of benefit by patient subgroups. Laryngoscope 2004;114:942–4
12Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Burrell, SP, Cooper, HR, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. Patient satisfaction with bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids: the Birmingham experience. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 2002;116(suppl 28):3746
13Bance, M, Abel, SM, Papsin, BC, Wade, P, Vendramini, J. A comparison of the audiometric performance of bone anchored hearing aids and air conduction hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:912–9
14Wazen, JJ, Spitzer, J, Ghossaini, SN, Kacker, A, Zschommler, A. Results of the bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2001;111:955–8
15Gatehouse, S, Noble, W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004;43:8599
16House, JW, Kutz, JW Jr, Chung, J, Fisher, LM. Bone-anchored hearing aid subjective benefit for unilateral deafness. Laryngoscope 2010;120:601–7
17Martin, TP, Lowther, R, Cooper, H, Holder, RL, Irving, RM, Reid, AP et al. The bone-anchored hearing aid in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness: experience with 58 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2010;35:284–90
18Kunst, SJ, Leijendeckers, JM, Mylanus, EA, Hol, MK, Snik, AF, Cremers, CW. Bone-anchored hearing aid system application for unilateral congenital conductive hearing impairment: audiometric results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:27
19Dumper, J, Hodgetts, B, Liu, R, Brandner, N. Indications for bone-anchored hearing AIDS: a functional outcomes study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;38:96105
20McNeil, ML, Gulliver, M, Morris, DP, Bance, M. Quality of life improvement for bone-anchored hearing aid users and their partners. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:554–60



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed