The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids.

C T van der Pouw, A F Snik, C W Cremers
{"title":"The BAHA HC200/300 in comparison with conventional bone conduction hearing aids.","authors":"C T van der Pouw,&nbsp;A F Snik,&nbsp;C W Cremers","doi":"10.1046/j.1365-2273.1999.00193.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A retrospective study was performed on 89 patients from a consecutive series who received a BAHA HC200/300 after having previously used conventional bone conduction hearing aids. The patients' performance with the BAHA HC 200/300 was compared to their performance with conventional bone conduction hearing aids. The patients were divided into two groups, depending on the time of implantation (before or after May 1992). The patients in group 1 (long-term users) were asked to fill in a questionnaire, the same one as they had filled in at the initial BAHA fitting more than 5 years previously. The answers were compared to their original opinions and difference scores were calculated. The long-term clinical results from group 1 are also presented. Although they are encouraging, the patients' opinion about the BAHA deteriorated somewhat over time. The audiometric results of group 2 were highly comparable with those of group 1. This confirms the positive results with the BAHA found in previous studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10694,"journal":{"name":"Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences","volume":"24 3","pages":"171-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1365-2273.1999.00193.x","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.1999.00193.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

A retrospective study was performed on 89 patients from a consecutive series who received a BAHA HC200/300 after having previously used conventional bone conduction hearing aids. The patients' performance with the BAHA HC 200/300 was compared to their performance with conventional bone conduction hearing aids. The patients were divided into two groups, depending on the time of implantation (before or after May 1992). The patients in group 1 (long-term users) were asked to fill in a questionnaire, the same one as they had filled in at the initial BAHA fitting more than 5 years previously. The answers were compared to their original opinions and difference scores were calculated. The long-term clinical results from group 1 are also presented. Although they are encouraging, the patients' opinion about the BAHA deteriorated somewhat over time. The audiometric results of group 2 were highly comparable with those of group 1. This confirms the positive results with the BAHA found in previous studies.

BAHA HC200/300与传统骨传导助听器的比较。
一项回顾性研究对来自连续系列的89名患者进行了研究,这些患者在先前使用传统骨传导助听器后接受了BAHA HC200/300助听器。将患者使用BAHA HC 200/300助听器的表现与使用传统骨传导助听器的表现进行比较。根据种植时间(1992年5月之前或之后)将患者分为两组。1组患者(长期使用者)被要求填写一份问卷,与他们在5年前首次BAHA拟合时填写的问卷相同。将答案与他们的原始观点进行比较,并计算差异分数。本文还介绍了第一组的长期临床结果。尽管这些结果令人鼓舞,但随着时间的推移,患者对BAHA的看法有所恶化。2组听力测量结果与1组具有高度可比性。这证实了先前研究中发现的BAHA的积极结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信