Open-fitting hearing aids: a comparative analysis between open behind-the-ear and open completely-in-the-canal instant-fit devices.

PURPOSE: Our study aims to assess the open-fitting capabilities and vent properties of traditional open-fitting behind-the-ear (open BTE) hearing aids to instant-fit open-fitting completely-in-the-canal (open CIC) systems. METHODS: The study analysed data from 40 patients grouped in two groups based on the used hearing aids. Free field pure tone and speech audiometry were performed to obtain the free-field pure tone average and free-field word recognition score (WRS). The matrix sentence test was employed to evaluate the auditory performance and functional outcomes of patients. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the personal satisfaction and benefit provided by the hearing aid. Real ear measurements were conducted to objectively evaluate the Real-Ear Unaided Gain (REUG) and Real-Ear Occluded Gain (REOG) of the two groups. For this purpose, six frequency bands (band 1 from 125 to 200 Hz, band 2 from 250 to 400 Hz, band 3 from 500 to 800 Hz, band 4 from 1000 to 1600 Hz, band 5 from 2000 to 3150 Hz, and band 6 from 4000 to 6300 Hz) were defined and compared. RESULTS: Free-field WRS exhibited a significant difference (p-value = 0.004) between open BTE and open CIC, with better results for the open BTE. Matrix test speech reception threshold scores did not differ significantly between groups. No statistical significant difference were observed between APHAB and SADL total scores. Correlation tests revealed a negative correlation between SRT and APHAB scores in the open BTE group, not seen in the open CIC. No statistically significant difference was observed for all bands of REUG values, demonstrating comparability in terms of acoustic resonance of the external auditory canal. Comparing the REOG recorded in the two groups a significant difference was observed for bands 2 through 6. While the average REOG values for bands 5 and 6 were higher in patients with traditional open BTE aids, in contrast, for bands 2, 3, and 4, the REOG values for the open CIC group were higher and statistically significant compared to patients wearing traditional open-fitting BTE hearing aids. CONCLUSION: Patients with open CIC seem to perform worse in quiet environments compared to noisy ones, as indicated by the free field WRS score. However, the absence of differences in functional performance assessed with the matrix sentence test, and in the psychosocial aspects, makes these devices a good solution for individuals who reject hearing aids due to aesthetic concerns. The differences in terms of real ear measurements, while statistically significant, do not negatively impact overall performance.

Functional outcomes for speech-in-noise intelligibility of NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescriptive fitting rules in hearing aid users.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this research study is to assess whether differences exist in the application of the NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescription formulas in terms of speech-in-noise intelligibility. METHODS: Data from 43 patients, were retrospectively evaluated and analyzed. Inclusion criteria were patients with bilateral conductive, sensorineural, or mixed hearing loss, already using hearing aids for at least 1 year, and aged 18 years or older. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the prescriptive method employed by the hearing aid: NAL-NL2 or DSL v.5. Pure tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free field pure tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was used to assess the personal audiological benefit provided by the hearing aid. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found comparing the free-field pure tone average (FF PTA) and the free-field Word Recognition Score (FF WRS). Comparing the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) parameter of patients with NAL-NL2 vs DSL v.5, no statistically significant difference was found, thus highlighting a condition of comparability between the two prescription methods in terms of speech-in-noise intelligibility. Comparing the results of the APHAB questionnaire, no statistically significant differences were evident for all subscales and overall benefit. When conducting a comparison between male and female patients using the NAL-NL2 method, no differences were observed in SRT values, however, the APHAB questionnaire revealed a difference in the AV subscale score for the same subjects. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in speech-in-noise intelligibility, as measured by the SRT values from the Matrix Sentence Test, when comparing the two prescriptive methods. This compelling result reinforces the notion that, functionally, both methods are comparably effective in enhancing speech intelligibility in real-world, noisy environments. However, it is crucial to underscore that the absence of differences does not diminish the importance of considering individual patient needs and preferences in the selection of a prescriptive method.

Audiological assessment with Matrix sentence test of percutaneous vs transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The study evaluated if there were differences between two types of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA), percutaneous vs transcutaneous implants in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Eleven patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss in the implanted ear with a bone conduction pure-tone average (BC PTA) of the hearing threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz ≤ 55 dB HL, aged > 5 years. Patients were assigned to two groups: percutaneous implant (BAHA Connect) and transcutaneous implant (BAHA Attract). Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by the implant, and the variation in the quality of life after the surgery. RESULTS: No differences were found comparing the data of Matrix SRT. APHAB and GBI questionnaires did not show a statistically significant difference comparing each subscale and the global score. The comparison of scores obtained from the SADL questionnaire demonstrated a difference in the "Personal Image" subscale with a better score for the transcutaneous implant. Furthermore, the Global Score of the SADL questionnaire was statistically different between groups. Other subscales did not show any significant difference. A Spearman's ρ correlation test was used to evaluate if the age could influence the SRT results; no correlation was found between age and SRT. Furthermore, the same test was used to confirm a negative correlation between SRT and the global benefit of the APHAB questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The current research confirms the absence of statistically significant differences comparing percutaneous and transcutaneous implants. The Matrix sentence test has shown the comparability of the two implants in the speech-in-noise intelligibility. Actually, the choice of the implant type can be done according to the patient's personal needs, the surgeon's experience, and the patient anatomy.