Ahmet Kara1, Mahmut Tayyar Kalcioglu2, Çağlayan Adigul3, Merve Torun Topcu4, Mehmet Koçoğlu3, Bilgehan Celik3, Mahmut Sinan Yilmaz3. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Korucuk, 54000, Sakarya, Turkey. doktor.kbb@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Korucuk, 54000, Sakarya, Turkey. 4. Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the audiological performances of Turkey's most up-to-date bone conduction implant processors. METHODS: Twenty-six bone-anchored hearing instrument users, thirteen in each group, were evaluated for speech understanding in quiet and several signal-to-noise ratios. RESULTS: We noticed the differences at 0.5 and 1 kHz measurements in free field frequency specific test, aided SRT scores, non-adaptive and adaptive matrix test results for a few conditions created a statistically significant difference in favor of Baha-6®. CONCLUSIONS: Both processors offer positive gains to their users in noisy and silent conditions. However, the data showed statistically significant differences for some measurements that may be critical for patients in daily practice.
PURPOSE: To compare the audiological performances of Turkey's most up-to-date bone conduction implant processors. METHODS: Twenty-six bone-anchored hearing instrument users, thirteen in each group, were evaluated for speech understanding in quiet and several signal-to-noise ratios. RESULTS: We noticed the differences at 0.5 and 1 kHz measurements in free field frequency specific test, aided SRT scores, non-adaptive and adaptive matrix test results for a few conditions created a statistically significant difference in favor of Baha-6®. CONCLUSIONS: Both processors offer positive gains to their users in noisy and silent conditions. However, the data showed statistically significant differences for some measurements that may be critical for patients in daily practice.
Authors: Ahmet Kara; Mehmet Guven; Mahmut Sinan Yilmaz; Deniz Demir; Çağlayan Adigul; Merve Durgut; Halil Elden; Fatih Mutlu; Mete İseri Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2019-04-07 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Bálint Posta; János András Jarabin; Ádám Perényi; Zsófia Bere; Adriana Neagos; Ferenc Tóth; József Géza Kiss; László Rovó Journal: Orv Hetil Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 0.540
Authors: Rik C Nelissen; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Henricus P M Kunst; Ronald J E Pennings; Ad F M Snik; Myrthe K S Hol Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 2.503