TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aid, Bone Anchored Hearing Aid, and ADHEAR
T2 - Case Series of 6 Patients with Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss
AU - Kitama, Tsubasa
AU - Nishiyama, Takanori
AU - Iwabu, Kaho
AU - Wakabayashi, Takeshi
AU - Shimanuki, Marie N.
AU - Hosoya, Makoto
AU - Oishi, Naoki
AU - Ozawa, Hiroyuki
N1 - Funding Information:
We acknowledge the support of the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Keio University Hospital.
Funding Information:
This research was funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists (19K18744) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and Takeda Science Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by the authors.
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Cartilage conduction hearing aids (CC-HA), bone anchored hearing aids (Baha), and ADHEAR are good choices to improve hearing in patients who cannot use air conduction hearing aids because of aural atresia or continuous otorrhea. As there are many overlaps in the characteristics of these devices, we conducted a comparative trial of CC-HA, Baha, and ADHEAR. We provided patients with the opportunity to select their devices. The data of 6 patients who underwent comparative trials in our department between October 2021 and August 2022 were retrospectively examined. The gains of Baha and CC-HA outweighed those of ADHEAR. Regarding the sound localization test, there was no significant tendency for any of the hearing devices. Regarding the Glasgow Benefit Inventory, there was no clear tendency among the three devices in the quality of life evaluation. The most satisfactory model was the one subjectively chosen by the patient, regardless of the gain and score of the sound source localization test. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to provide an opportunity for comparative trials and a consultation with each patient in the process of selecting a device.
AB - Cartilage conduction hearing aids (CC-HA), bone anchored hearing aids (Baha), and ADHEAR are good choices to improve hearing in patients who cannot use air conduction hearing aids because of aural atresia or continuous otorrhea. As there are many overlaps in the characteristics of these devices, we conducted a comparative trial of CC-HA, Baha, and ADHEAR. We provided patients with the opportunity to select their devices. The data of 6 patients who underwent comparative trials in our department between October 2021 and August 2022 were retrospectively examined. The gains of Baha and CC-HA outweighed those of ADHEAR. Regarding the sound localization test, there was no significant tendency for any of the hearing devices. Regarding the Glasgow Benefit Inventory, there was no clear tendency among the three devices in the quality of life evaluation. The most satisfactory model was the one subjectively chosen by the patient, regardless of the gain and score of the sound source localization test. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to provide an opportunity for comparative trials and a consultation with each patient in the process of selecting a device.
KW - aural atresia
KW - bone conduction
KW - cartilage conduction
KW - continuous otorrhea
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85143709782&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85143709782&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/app122312099
DO - 10.3390/app122312099
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85143709782
SN - 2076-3417
VL - 12
JO - Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
JF - Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
IS - 23
M1 - 12099
ER -
