Display options
Share it on

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Dec;265(12):1461-4. doi: 10.1007/s00405-008-0676-y. Epub 2008 Apr 16.

A survey of satisfaction and use among patients fitted with a BAHA.

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

St├ęphane Tringali, Alexis Bozorg Grayeli, Didier Bouccara, Olivier Sterkers, Sandrine Chardon, Christian Martin, Christian Dubreuil


  1. Service d'Oto-neurochirurgie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, 69495, PIERRE-BENITE Cedex, France. [email protected]

PMID: 18415113 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0676-y


We compared the indices of satisfaction and use among patients wearing an osseo-integrated prosthesis BAHA (bone anchored hearing aid) according to the indications: conductive or mixed hearing loss (CHL) and patients with single side deafness (SSD). The study was carried out among patients wearing a BAHA fitted in one of three French departments between November 2001 and November 2005. Each patient received a postal questionnaire relating to the ease of use and the daily utilization period of the prosthesis, as well as a satisfaction rating (from 1 to 10) evaluating improvement in quality of life, overall satisfaction, improvement in sound localization and satisfaction from the aesthetic point of view. In total, 170 out of 231 patients responded to the questionnaire (response rate of 73.5%). The average age at the time of fitting of the BAHA was 56 years (18-79 years). The SSD group was composed of 118 patients (69.4%): 92 following surgery for vestibular schwannoma, 2 following surgery for meningioma and 24 with "other" causes (e.g. idiopathic sudden deafness, sensori neural hearing loss complicating surgery of the middle ear). The CHL group was composed of 52 patients (30.5%): 44 patients with a chronic otitis and 8 with a malformation of the middle ear. The average duration of use of the prosthesis was 22 months (3-72 months). The average utilization period was higher than 8 h per day in 48.5% of cases. There was a significant difference between the two groups concerning the quality of life (p < 0.0001), general satisfaction (p < 0.0001) and sound localization (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference concerning aesthetics. Among the patients of the CHL group, the levels of satisfaction and quality of life are comparable with recent data in the literature with scores of good or very good. The BAHA thus remains one of the methods of choice for hearing rehabilitation in this group of patients. Among the patients of the SSD group, the levels of satisfaction and quality of life are significantly poorer than in the CHL group, but remain generally good with the exception of sound localization. The treatment of SSD patients with a BAHA is interesting. A study comparing the BAHA with the WIFI CROS system is justified in order to ascertain the respective advantages of these two treatment options.


  1. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 Feb;122(2):272-6 - PubMed
  2. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2001;122(5):343-50 - PubMed
  3. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac. 2000 Dec;117(6):410-417 - PubMed
  4. Acta Otolaryngol. 2003 Jan;123(2):258-60 - PubMed
  5. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Apr;131(4):321-5 - PubMed
  6. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Apr;121(4):421-5 - PubMed
  7. Otol Neurotol. 2006 Aug;27(5):659-66 - PubMed
  8. Otol Neurotol. 2007 Feb;28(2):213-7 - PubMed
  9. Ear Nose Throat J. 1994 Feb;73(2):112-4 - PubMed
  10. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Feb;134(2):236-9 - PubMed
  11. Acta Otolaryngol. 1985 Sep-Oct;100(3-4):229-39 - PubMed
  12. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Jun;132(6):928-32 - PubMed
  13. Am J Otol. 1998 Nov;19(6):737-41 - PubMed
  14. Clin Otolaryngol. 2006 Feb;31(1):6-14 - PubMed
  15. Otol Neurotol. 2001 May;22(3):328-34 - PubMed
  16. Otol Neurotol. 2005 Sep;26(5):999-1006 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types