This study aimed to determine the speech discriminatory ability of the contralateral ear of users of a unilateral bone-anchored hearing system (BAHS). The Oticon Medical Ponto Pro/Ponto Pro Power device brand was used for all patients. Five BAHS users (3 men, 2 women) participated in the study. Pure-tone air-conduction thresholds at 250 to 6,000 Hz, masked and unmasked bone-conduction thresholds at 250 to 4,000 Hz, and participants' speech discrimination scores in both ears were determined. Speech discrimination tests were carried out in a silent environment with monosyllabic and trisyllabic word lists. After this, the ipsilateral ear (the BAHS side) was masked with wide-band noise using an insert earphone, and the word tests were repeated. A mild decrease was observed in monosyllabic words in ipsilateral masking; however, this was not found to be statistically significant. Conversely, a decrease was not observed in the repetition of trisyllabic words in any participants, even under high-level ipsilateral masking. These results suggested that unilateral BAHS application could prevent or reduce the neural deprivation of the contralateral ear. * p > 0.05 for all comparisons.
Background A standard method and parameter study were performed for the contralateral suppression test. Purpose Our study aimed to determine the contralateral transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) suppression test method and stimulus–noise parameters that have a standard procedure and will enable the efferent system to be easily evaluated in clinics. Research Design: This study was conducted in two parts with two different groups of participants as a within-subjects design. In the first part, the signal-to-noise ratio at which maximum suppression obtained was investigated with 29 participants. In the second part, the optimal contralateral noise presentation method (in terms of noise-time or noise-sweep) was examined with 21 participants. Study Sample In the first part 29 young adults aged between 18 and 32 (23.03 ± 2.84), 20 females and 9 males, and in the second part 21 young adults aged between 19 and 34 years (mean age: 23.71 ± 3.48 years), 16 females and 5 males, participated in the second part. All participants had normal hearing. Data Collection and Analysis To obtain maximum OAE suppression, different parameters were tested with the Otodynamics ILO292-II OAE device at both parts of the study in a double-walled audiometric test booths. Multirepeated analysis of variance, pairwise comparison, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for statistical analysis. Results In the first part, maximum suppression was achieved at 65 dB peSPL (decibel peak-equivalent sound pressure level) TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise. In the second part, maximum suppression was obtained in noise-time method with 30 seconds “duration.” Conclusions To provide standardization in clinics, it can be recommended that the contralateral suppression of OAEs was measured at 65 dB peSPL TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise in the linear stimulation mode with Otodynamics ILO 292-II double-probe OAE device. To obtain maximum suppression, the noise-time method with 30 seconds duration can be used.
Introduction The bone-anchored hearing implant system (BAHS) is an effective amplification system that transmits the sounds received by an external operating system to the inner ear by bypassing the middle ear placed in the temporal bone. Objective This study compares the results of patients who underwent bone-anchored hearing implant system (BAHS) surgery using two different surgical methods in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications, surgical time, audiological findings, and patient satisfaction. Methods The results of 22 patients who underwent BAHS were evaluated retrospectively from video records and audiological results, The Turkish Version of the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaire were evaluated. Two different surgical approaches were used for implantation: the linear incision technique (n = 9) and the punch technique (n = 13). Results Mean surgical durations were 9.67 ± 2.85 and 47.65 ± 6.13 minutes for Groups A and B, respectively, and these were significantly different (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups' speech recognition scores for a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of +5 (p = 0.173), SNR of 0 (p = 0.315), or SNR of -5 (p = 0.360) and results of the GBI scores. Conclusion The punch technique has a significant advantage due to a shorter surgery duration without increased surgical complications. Additionally, the punch technique showed no significant difference in hearing performance or satisfaction compared with linear incision.
Background Telemedicine is a method of providing remote healthcare services and consultations to patients using communication technology. Tele-audiology is a sub-branch of telemedicine. It refers to providing audiology services using telehealth strategies. This study aims to compare the satisfaction of patients who come to the hearing aid center and receive device fitting service and patients who have hearing aid fitting using tele-audiology service. For this purpose, hearing aid users were divided into two groups. The study group consisted of 17 participants (10 male, 7 females; mean age 65.17 ± 13.88) who continued fitting appointments remotely after the first clinic application, while the control group consisted of 23 participants (10 males, 13 females; mean age 62.17 ± 18.32) who had all hearing aid fittings performed face-to-face in the clinic. The participant’s satisfaction was assessed with The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids Turkiye (IOI-HA-TR) questionnaire because it is practical and can be administered over the phone. Results There were no significant differences in hearing aid satisfaction between those who came to the hearing center and filled out the IOI-HA-TR questionnaire personally and those who completed it through the Remote Care application (p < 0.05). In addition, most of the participants stated that using Remote Care solved their problems (35% very good, 24% good) and they were satisfied with the fitting of their hearing aids with this application (35% good, 29% very good). In addition, 13 out of 17 participants stated that they would pay attention to the “remote fitting” feature when purchasing a new hearing aid (76% very good). Moreover, they would like to continue the fitting using the Remote Care application (65% yes). Conclusion Remote fitting technology via smartphone applications can facilitate the lives of hearing aid users and improve their quality of life in cases of risky conditions such as pandemics, various diseases, and physical limitations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.