Premium
On the evaluation of a superpower sound processor for bone‐anchored hearing
Author(s) -
Bosman A.J.,
Kruyt I.J.,
Mylanus E.A.M.,
Hol M.K.S.,
Snik A.F.M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/coa.12989
Subject(s) - superpower , medicine , audiology , sound (geography) , acoustics , political science , law , china , physics
Objectives Performance of a superpower bone‐anchored hearing aid (Baha), the Baha Cordelle from Cochlear Bone‐Anchored Solutions ( BCD 1), was compared to its successor, the Baha 5 SuperPower ( BCD 2). Design A comparative study in which each patient served as its own control. Setting Tertiary clinic. Participants Ten experienced BCD 1 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 BCD 2 in the speech and noise frontal condition and in the speech frontal and noise contralateral condition than for BCD 1. For the group with severe mixed loss fitted with BCD ‐P, the SRT s were not significantly different ( P > 5%) from the BCD 2 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 BCD 2 than for BCD 1. 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 BCD 2 than for BCD 1. APHAB and SSQ scores for BCD ‐P were not significantly different from those for BCD 2 ( P > 5%). Conclusions Data for BCD 2 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 BCD 2 over BCD 1, and 7 patients had a preference for BCD 2 over BCD 1. One patient preferred BCD 1 because of its built‐in telecoil facility.