We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Patients' opinions of bone-anchored vs conventional hearing aids.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' opinions of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) compared with a conventional hearing aid.
DESIGN: Prospective study with two questionnaires. Questionnaire A consisted of questions that compared patients' previous hearing aid with the BAHA. Questionnaire B consisted of questions about the patients' experiences with the hearing aids.
PATIENTS: Sixty-five consecutive patients who had used conventional hearing aids.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
INTERVENTION: A percutaneous titanium implant in the temporal bone for the BAHA.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Qualitative descriptive results of questionnaire A and difference scores from questionnaire B comparing conventional hearing aids and the BAHA.
RESULTS: Patients favored the BAHA to the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid. Patients with BAHA reported a significant improvement in speech recognition in quiet and in noise, in sound quality, and in comfort (P < .01). The results with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous for speech recognition, but all the patients reported a decrease in ear infections.
CONCLUSION: The BAHA is a good alternative for the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid if a patient can no longer use an air-conduction hearing aid.
DESIGN: Prospective study with two questionnaires. Questionnaire A consisted of questions that compared patients' previous hearing aid with the BAHA. Questionnaire B consisted of questions about the patients' experiences with the hearing aids.
PATIENTS: Sixty-five consecutive patients who had used conventional hearing aids.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
INTERVENTION: A percutaneous titanium implant in the temporal bone for the BAHA.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Qualitative descriptive results of questionnaire A and difference scores from questionnaire B comparing conventional hearing aids and the BAHA.
RESULTS: Patients favored the BAHA to the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid. Patients with BAHA reported a significant improvement in speech recognition in quiet and in noise, in sound quality, and in comfort (P < .01). The results with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid were ambiguous for speech recognition, but all the patients reported a decrease in ear infections.
CONCLUSION: The BAHA is a good alternative for the conventional bone-conduction hearing aid if a patient can no longer use an air-conduction hearing aid.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app