Background Single-sided deafness (SSD) is a condition characterized by one ear having normal or near-normal hearing while the other ear experiences significantly impaired hearing. While there is no cure for permanent SSD, there are devices that can assist in restoring hearing sensation in the deaf ear. Objective To assess the acceptance of available treatment options in patients with Single sided deafness (SSD). Methodology The research involved 35 patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) who tried three different rehabilitative devices: Bone Conduction Device (BCD), Contra-Lateral Routing Of Signal (CROS), and Ultra power digital programmable hearing aids. Patients were also given the option to not use any hearing aid. They rated their satisfaction with each option on a 100-point scale. Additionally, patients were asked to choose which intervention they preferred, if any, and to explain their choice. Factors for not choosing a hearing aid were also explored. Results The research findings indicated that patients with profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss expressed the highest satisfaction with the BCD softband (average score 83.97± 4.53), followed by the CROS hearing aid (74.71± 4.19) and the unaided condition (61.91± 6.35). In contrast, the ultra-power digital programmable hearing aid received the lowest satisfaction score (19.2± 4.28). Only 8 out of 35 patients chose to use a hearing aid. Among the 27 who did not opt for a hearing aid, reasons included concerns about appearance (13.63%), difficulty adapting (4.54%), financial limitations (22.72%), discomfort or irritation (9.09%), limited perceived benefit (13.63%), and a combination of these factors (36.36%). Conclusion Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) encounter challenges related to their hearing abilities. While the study indicates that these patients recognize the potential advantages of various intervention choices, they tend to refrain from adopting them due to a variety of factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
- et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: