Comparison of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aid, Bone Anchored Hearing Aid, and ADHEAR: Case Series of 6 Patients with Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied sciences 2022-12, Vol.12 (23), p.12099
Main Authors: Kitama, Tsubasa, Nishiyama, Takanori, Iwabu, Kaho, Wakabayashi, Takeshi, Shimanuki, Marie N., Hosoya, Makoto, Oishi, Naoki, Ozawa, Hiroyuki
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adhesives
Aids
Audiometry
aural atresia
bone conduction
Cartilage
cartilage conduction
Clinical trials
Conduction
continuous otorrhea
Ear
Ear diseases
Hearing aids
Hearing loss
Localization
Otology
Patients
Quality of life
Sound
Sound localization
Sound sources
Surgery
Transplants & implants
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:2076-3417
2076-3417
DOI:10.3390/app122312099