The importance of an extended preoperative trial of BAHA in unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The influence of an extended preoperative trial of bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) and headband on the decision to proceed with surgery in cases of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss is studied. DESIGN: In this prospective study, the headband was introduced after assessment confirmed suitable candidacy. Those who had an initially favourable response to the headband trial were encouraged to complete a 2-week home trial of device and headband. Patients were asked to pay special attention to situations where they perceived high demands on their hearing, e.g. at the dinner table, in the car, walking outside etc. Counselling regarding the BAHA placement, the need for daily care of the implant site and the financial implications of acquiring the device was also given. SETTING: Tertiary university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, fulfilling criteria for BAHA surgery, with favourable response to initial 'office trial' of headband. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: After 2-week home trial, BAHA and headband were returned with a statement of the patient's intentions. RESULTS: Sixteen of 50 (32%) patients who expressed definite interest in BAHA surgery after a positive introduction to the headband in the office did not wish to proceed to surgery having completed a more thorough 2-week trial of device at home. Most patients cited a failure of the device to meet their hearing requirements. Subsequently, we found further attrition with nine more patients (18%) deciding at a still later date, not to proceed with surgery. Ultimately, just 25 of 50 (50%) of our initially enthusiastic group chose not to proceed to surgery. In the group who did proceed, there were no non-users. CONCLUSIONS: We propose the importance of an extended preoperative trial where BAHA is considered in the rehabilitation of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The trial may foster more realistic expectations of device performance in this challenging group. A 'cooling-off' period before surgery also appears to lead to further attrition with the ultimate reward of no non-users in those proceeding to surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".