These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Audiological results of the bone-anchored hearing aid HC200: multicenter results.
    Author: Mylanus EA, Snik FM, Cremers CW, Jorritsma FF, Verschuure H.
    Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 1994 May; 103(5 Pt 1):368-74. PubMed ID: 8179253.
    Abstract:
    Sixty-two patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (average bone conduction threshold at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz ranged from 1 to 44 dB hearing level) were fitted with a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA type HC200). Previously, 52 of them had used a conventional bone conduction hearing aid (CBHA) and 10 of them an air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). Audiological tests were conducted to compare the patients' performance with the BAHA to that with their previous conventional hearing aid. In the speech recognition in quiet test, only 5 patients in the CBHA group improved significantly: the majority had 100% scores with both hearing aids. In the speech recognition in noise test, 28 patients improved significantly. The mean improvement in the signal to noise ratio (S/N) in the CBHA group was -2.3 +/- 2.4 dB. That none of the patients in the CBHA group performed worse with the BAHA led us to the conclusion that the BAHA is superior to the CBHA. None of the patients in the ACHA group achieved a better speech recognition in quiet score using the BAHA. On average, there was no significant improvement in the S/N ratio in the ACHA group, although in 6 patients the S/N ratio improved significantly, and in 1 patient it worsened significantly. From the whole group, the performance of only 2 patients, both in the ACHA group, was significantly worse with the BAHA on one of the speech recognition tests.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]