RESUMEN
Patients with single sided-deafness (SSD) have hearing deficits amounting to a handicap to their everyday quality of life and are likely to suffer serious social challenges. There is a significant gap in the "disability" aspect of SSD in literature. The study was undertaken to compare the quality of life of SSD patients in various domains with normal hearing individuals. 51 patients of SSD with pure sensorineural hearing loss with impaired ear having a pure tone average of more than or equal to 70 dB was compared with 50 subjects with normal hearing sensitivity. Pure tone audiometric testing and the english version of Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) were used to enumerate subjective advantage. Total average SSQ score across domains in patients (6.6 ± 1.2) was significantly poorer in comparison to the control group (8.4 ± 0.9). Based on SSQ, patients with SSD experience hearing disability in comparison to the control group (p < 0.01). The ratings of all the items in the SSQ subdomains were higher in the reference group than in the patient group. Individuals with single sided-deafness experience significant auditory disability in all the three domains of speech, spatial & qualities of hearing. Therefore, these patients should be strongly counselled for currently available treatment options.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to non-participation of the diseased ear in generating adequate auditory input, which results in poor speech discrimination in noisy surroundings. The present study objectively compared the audiological benefits rendered by contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid and bone conduction device (BCD) in patients with SSD >70 dB HL using the modified hearing in noise test (HINT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with SSD >70 dB HL in poor and clinically normal hearing in the better ear were enrolled. Patients aged <18 or >70 years, with a history of neurological insult or ear infection in the last 3 months, mental retardation, psychiatric or developmental disorders, and diabetes were excluded. Modified HINT was performed with the affected ear unaided, aided with CROS hearing aid, and with BCD, generating three groups. Noise signal was presented at a fixed intensity of 65 dB at the neutral position in the center and speech signal was presented to either ear sequentially. The test was repeated with the speech signal fixed at the neutral position and the noise signal presented to either ear. RESULTS: BCD led to a better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than CROS hearing aid in all situations except when noise was centralized and speech was presented to the affected ear. CONCLUSIONS: A benefit was observed when auditory rehabilitation was used for the affected ear as demonstrated by better SNR scores. The results showed that BCD performed better than CROS hearing aid.