A J Bosman1, I J Kruyt1, E A M Mylanus1, M K S Hol1, A F M Snik1. 1. Hearing and Implants, Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Performance of a superpower bone-anchored hearing aid (Baha), the Baha Cordelle from Cochlear Bone-Anchored Solutions (BCD1), was compared to its successor, the Baha 5 SuperPower (BCD2). DESIGN: A comparative study in which each patient served as its own control. SETTING: Tertiary clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Ten experienced BCD1 users with profound mixed hearing loss. For comparison, data from another study with 10 experienced users with a severe mixed hearing loss using a Cochlear Baha 5 power sound processor (BCD-P) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech reception thresholds in noise and APHAB and SSQ questionnaires. RESULTS: Speech reception thresholds for the digits-in-noise (DIN) test were significantly lower (P < 5%), that is more favourable, for BCD2 in the speech and noise frontal condition and in the speech frontal and noise contralateral condition than for BCD1. For the group with severe mixed loss fitted with BCD-P, the SRTs were not significantly different (P > 5%) from the BCD2 values. With the APHAB questionnaire scores were significantly lower, that is more favourable, for the ease of communication (P < 5%) and the background noise (P < 1%) domains for BCD2 than for BCD1. APHAB scores for the aversiveness of loud sounds domain were not significantly different for both devices (P > 5%). Scores for the speech and quality domains of the SSQ questionnaire were significantly higher, that is more favourable, for BCD2 than for BCD1. APHAB and SSQ scores for BCD-P were not significantly different from those for BCD2 (P > 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Data for BCD2 in profound mixed loss are similar to those for BCD-P and a severe mixed loss. Of 10 patients, 2 expressed a strong preference for BCD2 over BCD1, and 7 patients had a preference for BCD2 over BCD1. One patient preferred BCD1 because of its built-in telecoil facility.
OBJECTIVES: Performance of a superpower bone-anchored hearing aid (Baha), the Baha Cordelle from Cochlear Bone-Anchored Solutions (BCD1), was compared to its successor, the Baha 5 SuperPower (BCD2). DESIGN: A comparative study in which each patient served as its own control. SETTING: Tertiary clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Ten experienced BCD1 users with profound mixed hearing loss. For comparison, data from another study with 10 experienced users with a severe mixed hearing loss using a Cochlear Baha 5 power sound processor (BCD-P) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Speech reception thresholds in noise and APHAB and SSQ questionnaires. RESULTS: Speech reception thresholds for the digits-in-noise (DIN) test were significantly lower (P < 5%), that is more favourable, for BCD2 in the speech and noise frontal condition and in the speech frontal and noise contralateral condition than for BCD1. For the group with severe mixed loss fitted with BCD-P, the SRTs were not significantly different (P > 5%) from the BCD2 values. With the APHAB questionnaire scores were significantly lower, that is more favourable, for the ease of communication (P < 5%) and the background noise (P < 1%) domains for BCD2 than for BCD1. APHAB scores for the aversiveness of loud sounds domain were not significantly different for both devices (P > 5%). Scores for the speech and quality domains of the SSQ questionnaire were significantly higher, that is more favourable, for BCD2 than for BCD1. APHAB and SSQ scores for BCD-P were not significantly different from those for BCD2 (P > 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Data for BCD2 in profound mixed loss are similar to those for BCD-P and a severe mixed loss. Of 10 patients, 2 expressed a strong preference for BCD2 over BCD1, and 7 patients had a preference for BCD2 over BCD1. One patient preferred BCD1 because of its built-in telecoil facility.
Authors: Guy Fierens; Charlotte Borgers; Tristan Putzeys; Joris Walraevens; Astrid Van Wieringen; Nicolas Verhaert Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 3.411