OBJECTIVES: To compare the patient benefit of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (Baha) Divino and the Baha BP100 sound processors. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Twenty experienced Baha Divino users with conductive or mixed hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: Speech understanding in quiet and in noise was measured in unaided conditions and with the subjects' own Divino sound processors. Speech in noise was tested with the noise arriving either from the front or from the back of the subjects. Then, participants were fitted with BP100 sound processors. After 3 months of use, all speech tests were repeated with the new sound processor along with a subset of the tests from the first session to assess learning or training effects. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaires were administered at 0 and at 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Aided speech understanding in quiet and in noise. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two devices regarding speech understanding in quiet. Speech understanding in noise was improved, on average, by +1.0 to +2.3 dB with the BP100 when compared to the Divino. No significant learning effects were found. Subjective ratings assessed by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire showed statistically significantly better scores for the BP100 for noisy or reverberant environments, when compared with the Divino. CONCLUSION: The performance of both devices is similar for speech understanding in quiet. Speech understanding in noise is significantly better with the Baha BP100 than with the Baha Divino, presumably as a result of the improved signal processing.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the patient benefit of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid (Baha) Divino and the Baha BP100 sound processors. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Twenty experienced Baha Divino users with conductive or mixed hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: Speech understanding in quiet and in noise was measured in unaided conditions and with the subjects' own Divino sound processors. Speech in noise was tested with the noise arriving either from the front or from the back of the subjects. Then, participants were fitted with BP100 sound processors. After 3 months of use, all speech tests were repeated with the new sound processor along with a subset of the tests from the first session to assess learning or training effects. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaires were administered at 0 and at 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Aided speech understanding in quiet and in noise. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two devices regarding speech understanding in quiet. Speech understanding in noise was improved, on average, by +1.0 to +2.3 dB with the BP100 when compared to the Divino. No significant learning effects were found. Subjective ratings assessed by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire showed statistically significantly better scores for the BP100 for noisy or reverberant environments, when compared with the Divino. CONCLUSION: The performance of both devices is similar for speech understanding in quiet. Speech understanding in noise is significantly better with the Baha BP100 than with the Baha Divino, presumably as a result of the improved signal processing.
Authors: Ad Snik; Hannes Maier; Bill Hodgetts; Martin Kompis; Griet Mertens; Paul van de Heyning; Thomas Lenarz; Arjan Bosman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.311