Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness
Abstract Objectives Patients with single‐sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-02-01
|
| Series: | Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1002 |
| _version_ | 1797895915554471936 |
|---|---|
| author | Anne W. Wendrich Jan A. A. vanHeteren Jeroen P. M. Peters Guido Cattani Robert J. Stokroos Huib Versnel Adriana L. Smit |
| author_facet | Anne W. Wendrich Jan A. A. vanHeteren Jeroen P. M. Peters Guido Cattani Robert J. Stokroos Huib Versnel Adriana L. Smit |
| author_sort | Anne W. Wendrich |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objectives Patients with single‐sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly improve subjective speech communication and QoL in SSD patients. A trial period with these devices can help in making a well‐informed choice of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing the choice of treatment made after a BCD and CROS trial period in adult SSD patients. Methods Patients were randomized in the: “first BCD, then CROS” or “first CROS, then BCD” trial period group. After the BCD on headband and CROS were tested for 6 weeks each, patients choose for BCD, CROS or no treatment. Primary outcome was the distribution of choice of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the association between the choice of treatment and patient characteristics, reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection, device usage during the trial periods, and disease‐specific QoL outcomes. Results Of 91 patients randomized, 84 completed both trial periods and made their choice of treatment: 25 (30%) BCD, 34 (40%) CROS, and 25 (30%) no treatment. No characteristics were found to be related to choice of treatment. Top three reasons for acceptance or rejection were: device (dis)comfort, sound quality and (dis)advantage of subjective hearing. Average daily device use during the trial periods was higher for CROS than for BCD. Choice of treatment was significantly related with both duration of device usage and greater improvement of QoL after the corresponding trial period. Conclusion The majority of SSD patients preferred BCD or CROS over no treatment. Evaluating device usage, discussing treatment (dis)advantages and disease‐specific QoL outcomes after trial periods are to be considered during patient counseling and could facilitate whether to choose one of these treatments. Level of evidence 1B. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T07:34:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-894cbd4bcbd24005aacc81a5065019a0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2378-8038 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T07:34:26Z |
| publishDate | 2023-02-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology |
| spelling | doaj.art-894cbd4bcbd24005aacc81a5065019a02023-02-23T13:23:02ZengWileyLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology2378-80382023-02-018119220010.1002/lio2.1002Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafnessAnne W. Wendrich0Jan A. A. vanHeteren1Jeroen P. M. Peters2Guido Cattani3Robert J. Stokroos4Huib Versnel5Adriana L. Smit6Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht NetherlandsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht NetherlandsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht NetherlandsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht NetherlandsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht NetherlandsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht NetherlandsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht NetherlandsAbstract Objectives Patients with single‐sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly improve subjective speech communication and QoL in SSD patients. A trial period with these devices can help in making a well‐informed choice of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing the choice of treatment made after a BCD and CROS trial period in adult SSD patients. Methods Patients were randomized in the: “first BCD, then CROS” or “first CROS, then BCD” trial period group. After the BCD on headband and CROS were tested for 6 weeks each, patients choose for BCD, CROS or no treatment. Primary outcome was the distribution of choice of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the association between the choice of treatment and patient characteristics, reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection, device usage during the trial periods, and disease‐specific QoL outcomes. Results Of 91 patients randomized, 84 completed both trial periods and made their choice of treatment: 25 (30%) BCD, 34 (40%) CROS, and 25 (30%) no treatment. No characteristics were found to be related to choice of treatment. Top three reasons for acceptance or rejection were: device (dis)comfort, sound quality and (dis)advantage of subjective hearing. Average daily device use during the trial periods was higher for CROS than for BCD. Choice of treatment was significantly related with both duration of device usage and greater improvement of QoL after the corresponding trial period. Conclusion The majority of SSD patients preferred BCD or CROS over no treatment. Evaluating device usage, discussing treatment (dis)advantages and disease‐specific QoL outcomes after trial periods are to be considered during patient counseling and could facilitate whether to choose one of these treatments. Level of evidence 1B.https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1002bone conduction devicecontralateral routing of soundrandomized controlled trialsingle‐sided deafnesstrial period |
| spellingShingle | Anne W. Wendrich Jan A. A. vanHeteren Jeroen P. M. Peters Guido Cattani Robert J. Stokroos Huib Versnel Adriana L. Smit Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology bone conduction device contralateral routing of sound randomized controlled trial single‐sided deafness trial period |
| title | Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness |
| title_full | Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness |
| title_fullStr | Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness |
| title_full_unstemmed | Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness |
| title_short | Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single‐sided deafness |
| title_sort | choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single sided deafness |
| topic | bone conduction device contralateral routing of sound randomized controlled trial single‐sided deafness trial period |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1002 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT annewwendrich choiceoftreatmentevaluatedaftertrialperiodswithboneconductiondevicesandcontralateralroutingofsoundsystemsinpatientswithsinglesideddeafness AT janaavanheteren choiceoftreatmentevaluatedaftertrialperiodswithboneconductiondevicesandcontralateralroutingofsoundsystemsinpatientswithsinglesideddeafness AT jeroenpmpeters choiceoftreatmentevaluatedaftertrialperiodswithboneconductiondevicesandcontralateralroutingofsoundsystemsinpatientswithsinglesideddeafness AT guidocattani choiceoftreatmentevaluatedaftertrialperiodswithboneconductiondevicesandcontralateralroutingofsoundsystemsinpatientswithsinglesideddeafness AT robertjstokroos choiceoftreatmentevaluatedaftertrialperiodswithboneconductiondevicesandcontralateralroutingofsoundsystemsinpatientswithsinglesideddeafness AT huibversnel choiceoftreatmentevaluatedaftertrialperiodswithboneconductiondevicesandcontralateralroutingofsoundsystemsinpatientswithsinglesideddeafness AT adrianalsmit choiceoftreatmentevaluatedaftertrialperiodswithboneconductiondevicesandcontralateralroutingofsoundsystemsinpatientswithsinglesideddeafness |