Abstract
Background and Objectives
Subjects and Method
Results
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Fig. 1.
![kjorl-hns-2023-00164f1.tif](/upload/SynapseXML/0038kjorl/thumb/kjorl-hns-2023-00164f1.gif)
Fig. 2.
![kjorl-hns-2023-00164f2.tif](/upload/SynapseXML/0038kjorl/thumb/kjorl-hns-2023-00164f2.gif)
Fig. 3.
![kjorl-hns-2023-00164f3.tif](/upload/SynapseXML/0038kjorl/thumb/kjorl-hns-2023-00164f3.gif)
Fig. 4.
![kjorl-hns-2023-00164f4.tif](/upload/SynapseXML/0038kjorl/thumb/kjorl-hns-2023-00164f4.gif)
Table 1.
Used six-frequency average. BCI, bone conduction implant; BC, bone conduction; WRS, word reception score; MCL, Most Comfortable Level; TLA, translabyrinthine approach; RSA, retrosigmoid approach; MCFA, middle-cranial fossa approach; mEETTA, modified exclusive endoscopic transcanal transpromontory approach; Baha, Baha Attract; BB, Bonebridge; SPH, Sophono
Table 2.
Each column showed difference of SNR after aided in each devices. Unaided-aided gap means SNR change before and after use of BCIs. In quiet condition, average all BCIs’ hearing level (unaided-aided gap) was -2.1 dB. In noisy condition, each SNR improved frontal (-0.6), right-side (-1.0), left-side (-2.9), all directions (-1.1) overall. BCI, bone conduction implant; SNR, signal/noise ratio
Table 3.
Device | EC gap avg | RV gap avg | BN gap avg | AV gap avg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baha Attract | 30.1±16.4 | 31.4±8.5 | 36.0±7.5 | 6.0±9.6 |
Bonebridge | 19.0±3.0 | 17.5±3.5 | 21.5±8.5 | 0 |
Sophono | 16.0 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 0 |
10 of 12 patients conducted APHAB score (Baha attract 7, Bonebridge 2, Sophono 1). Each 4 category score was calculated by gap between prefit score and postfit score. The gap average score is higher, patients expressed more satisfaction. APHAB, abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit; EC, ease of communication; RV, reverberation; BN, background noise; AV, aversiveness