OBJECTIVE: To compare speech understanding of the BAHA BP110 and BAHA Intenso sound processors. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Twenty experienced user of osseointegrated auditory implants with conductive or mixed hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: In a first session, half of the participants were fitted with an Intenso, the other half with a BP110. After 1 month of use, aided speech understanding in quiet and in noise was measured, and the other test processor was fitted. One month later, speech understanding with the second sound processor was assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech understanding in quiet and in noise, with noise arriving either from the front, the rear, or the side of the user with the osseointegrated bone conductor. RESULTS: Significant improvements were found for both processors for speech understanding in quiet (+9.6 to +34.8 percent points; p = 0.02 to 0.001) and in noise (+6.2 to +13.8 dB, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the 2 devices for speech in quiet. For noise from the rear, subjects were able to understand speech at signal-to-noise ratios which were lower (less favorable) by -5.1 dB (p < 0.001) when compared with the Intenso. CONCLUSION: Speech understanding is substantially improved by both devices, with no significant differences between the sound processors in quiet. In noise, speech understanding is significantly better with the BP110 when compared to the Intenso for noise from the rear.
OBJECTIVE: To compare speech understanding of the BAHA BP110 and BAHA Intenso sound processors. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Twenty experienced user of osseointegrated auditory implants with conductive or mixed hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: In a first session, half of the participants were fitted with an Intenso, the other half with a BP110. After 1 month of use, aided speech understanding in quiet and in noise was measured, and the other test processor was fitted. One month later, speech understanding with the second sound processor was assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech understanding in quiet and in noise, with noise arriving either from the front, the rear, or the side of the user with the osseointegrated bone conductor. RESULTS: Significant improvements were found for both processors for speech understanding in quiet (+9.6 to +34.8 percent points; p = 0.02 to 0.001) and in noise (+6.2 to +13.8 dB, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the 2 devices for speech in quiet. For noise from the rear, subjects were able to understand speech at signal-to-noise ratios which were lower (less favorable) by -5.1 dB (p < 0.001) when compared with the Intenso. CONCLUSION: Speech understanding is substantially improved by both devices, with no significant differences between the sound processors in quiet. In noise, speech understanding is significantly better with the BP110 when compared to the Intenso for noise from the rear.
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