Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study
Purpose The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. Methods Fifteen patients were selected. Inclusion crit...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology 2022-11, Vol.279 (11), p.5415-5422 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5422 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 5415 |
| container_title | European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology |
| container_volume | 279 |
| creator | Gazia, Francesco Portelli, Daniele Lo Vano, Martina Ciodaro, Francesco Galletti, Bruno Bruno, Rocco Freni, Francesco Alberti, Giuseppe Galletti, Francesco |
| description | Purpose
The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes.
Methods
Fifteen patients were selected. Inclusion criteria: Pure-Tone Average (PTA) air conduction range of hearing threshold at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz from 15 dB HL to 75 dB HL. Patients were assigned in three groups according to the hearing aid used: Extended wear, RITE, and CIC. Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with hearing aids, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by hearing aids.
Results
No differences were demonstrated in the Matrix sentence test between the groups. A statistically significant difference was present between the “Personal image” of patients with EW and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (better outcome using EW). For the APHAB questionnaire, a significant difference was present in the “Aversiveness” of the patients with EW in comparison to CIC and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (higher aversiveness of sound using EW).
Conclusion
In terms of audiological advantage, extended ear hearing aids are similar to RITE and CIC as demonstrated from the Matrix speech reception threshold. The result was confirmed using the APHAB questionnaire. Extended wear devices are better than daily hearing aids concerning the “personal image”. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00405-022-07445-0 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2682260150</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2682260150</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c254t-51c74485dc97dc251ae3e4b69f93f90e94a76a804077b4a593b497e1888d48de3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFPwzAMhSMEEmPwBzj1yIGCk7hNww1NGyBN4gLnKGtc6NS1JWmB_XsyypmLbVnvWX4fY5ccbjiAug0ACFkKQqSgEON0xGYcJaaoRH7MZqClShGVOmVnIWwBIEMtZyxffg_UOnLJF1mfvMdSt2-JrV24S2xSdrveejvUn3Sd9HXTDUkYRrc_ZyeVbQJd_PU5e10tXxaP6fr54Wlxv05LkeGQZryM3xSZK7VyccUtScJNristKw2k0arcFvF3pTZoMy03qBXxoigcFo7knF1Nd3vffYwUBrOrQ0lNY1vqxmBEXgiRA88gSsUkLX0XgqfK9L7eWb83HMwBkpkgmQjJ_EIyB5OcTKE_5CZvtt3o2xjpP9cPXmBoVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2682260150</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Gazia, Francesco ; Portelli, Daniele ; Lo Vano, Martina ; Ciodaro, Francesco ; Galletti, Bruno ; Bruno, Rocco ; Freni, Francesco ; Alberti, Giuseppe ; Galletti, Francesco</creator><creatorcontrib>Gazia, Francesco ; Portelli, Daniele ; Lo Vano, Martina ; Ciodaro, Francesco ; Galletti, Bruno ; Bruno, Rocco ; Freni, Francesco ; Alberti, Giuseppe ; Galletti, Francesco</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes.
Methods
Fifteen patients were selected. Inclusion criteria: Pure-Tone Average (PTA) air conduction range of hearing threshold at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz from 15 dB HL to 75 dB HL. Patients were assigned in three groups according to the hearing aid used: Extended wear, RITE, and CIC. Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with hearing aids, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by hearing aids.
Results
No differences were demonstrated in the Matrix sentence test between the groups. A statistically significant difference was present between the “Personal image” of patients with EW and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (better outcome using EW). For the APHAB questionnaire, a significant difference was present in the “Aversiveness” of the patients with EW in comparison to CIC and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (higher aversiveness of sound using EW).
Conclusion
In terms of audiological advantage, extended ear hearing aids are similar to RITE and CIC as demonstrated from the Matrix speech reception threshold. The result was confirmed using the APHAB questionnaire. Extended wear devices are better than daily hearing aids concerning the “personal image”.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0937-4477</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1434-4726</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07445-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Head and Neck Surgery ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Miscellaneous ; Neurosurgery ; Otorhinolaryngology</subject><ispartof>European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology, 2022-11, Vol.279 (11), p.5415-5422</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c254t-51c74485dc97dc251ae3e4b69f93f90e94a76a804077b4a593b497e1888d48de3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c254t-51c74485dc97dc251ae3e4b69f93f90e94a76a804077b4a593b497e1888d48de3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2134-8535</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00405-022-07445-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00405-022-07445-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gazia, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Portelli, Daniele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo Vano, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciodaro, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galletti, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruno, Rocco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freni, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alberti, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galletti, Francesco</creatorcontrib><title>Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study</title><title>European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology</title><addtitle>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol</addtitle><description>Purpose
The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes.
Methods
Fifteen patients were selected. Inclusion criteria: Pure-Tone Average (PTA) air conduction range of hearing threshold at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz from 15 dB HL to 75 dB HL. Patients were assigned in three groups according to the hearing aid used: Extended wear, RITE, and CIC. Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with hearing aids, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by hearing aids.
Results
No differences were demonstrated in the Matrix sentence test between the groups. A statistically significant difference was present between the “Personal image” of patients with EW and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (better outcome using EW). For the APHAB questionnaire, a significant difference was present in the “Aversiveness” of the patients with EW in comparison to CIC and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (higher aversiveness of sound using EW).
Conclusion
In terms of audiological advantage, extended ear hearing aids are similar to RITE and CIC as demonstrated from the Matrix speech reception threshold. The result was confirmed using the APHAB questionnaire. Extended wear devices are better than daily hearing aids concerning the “personal image”.</description><subject>Head and Neck Surgery</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology</subject><issn>0937-4477</issn><issn>1434-4726</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFPwzAMhSMEEmPwBzj1yIGCk7hNww1NGyBN4gLnKGtc6NS1JWmB_XsyypmLbVnvWX4fY5ccbjiAug0ACFkKQqSgEON0xGYcJaaoRH7MZqClShGVOmVnIWwBIEMtZyxffg_UOnLJF1mfvMdSt2-JrV24S2xSdrveejvUn3Sd9HXTDUkYRrc_ZyeVbQJd_PU5e10tXxaP6fr54Wlxv05LkeGQZryM3xSZK7VyccUtScJNristKw2k0arcFvF3pTZoMy03qBXxoigcFo7knF1Nd3vffYwUBrOrQ0lNY1vqxmBEXgiRA88gSsUkLX0XgqfK9L7eWb83HMwBkpkgmQjJ_EIyB5OcTKE_5CZvtt3o2xjpP9cPXmBoVw</recordid><startdate>20221101</startdate><enddate>20221101</enddate><creator>Gazia, Francesco</creator><creator>Portelli, Daniele</creator><creator>Lo Vano, Martina</creator><creator>Ciodaro, Francesco</creator><creator>Galletti, Bruno</creator><creator>Bruno, Rocco</creator><creator>Freni, Francesco</creator><creator>Alberti, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Galletti, Francesco</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-8535</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221101</creationdate><title>Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study</title><author>Gazia, Francesco ; Portelli, Daniele ; Lo Vano, Martina ; Ciodaro, Francesco ; Galletti, Bruno ; Bruno, Rocco ; Freni, Francesco ; Alberti, Giuseppe ; Galletti, Francesco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c254t-51c74485dc97dc251ae3e4b69f93f90e94a76a804077b4a593b497e1888d48de3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Head and Neck Surgery</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gazia, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Portelli, Daniele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo Vano, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciodaro, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galletti, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruno, Rocco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freni, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alberti, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galletti, Francesco</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gazia, Francesco</au><au>Portelli, Daniele</au><au>Lo Vano, Martina</au><au>Ciodaro, Francesco</au><au>Galletti, Bruno</au><au>Bruno, Rocco</au><au>Freni, Francesco</au><au>Alberti, Giuseppe</au><au>Galletti, Francesco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study</atitle><jtitle>European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol</stitle><date>2022-11-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>279</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>5415</spage><epage>5422</epage><pages>5415-5422</pages><issn>0937-4477</issn><eissn>1434-4726</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The study evaluated if there were differences between three types of hearing aids, Lyric extended wear (EW), receiver-in-the-ear canal (RITE), completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes.
Methods
Fifteen patients were selected. Inclusion criteria: Pure-Tone Average (PTA) air conduction range of hearing threshold at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz from 15 dB HL to 75 dB HL. Patients were assigned in three groups according to the hearing aid used: Extended wear, RITE, and CIC. Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with hearing aids, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by hearing aids.
Results
No differences were demonstrated in the Matrix sentence test between the groups. A statistically significant difference was present between the “Personal image” of patients with EW and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (better outcome using EW). For the APHAB questionnaire, a significant difference was present in the “Aversiveness” of the patients with EW in comparison to CIC and RITE with a
p
value of 0.01 (higher aversiveness of sound using EW).
Conclusion
In terms of audiological advantage, extended ear hearing aids are similar to RITE and CIC as demonstrated from the Matrix speech reception threshold. The result was confirmed using the APHAB questionnaire. Extended wear devices are better than daily hearing aids concerning the “personal image”.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s00405-022-07445-0</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-8535</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0937-4477 |
| ispartof | European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology, 2022-11, Vol.279 (11), p.5415-5422 |
| issn | 0937-4477 1434-4726 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2682260150 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Head and Neck Surgery Medicine Medicine & Public Health Miscellaneous Neurosurgery Otorhinolaryngology |
| title | Extended wear hearing aids: a comparative, pilot study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T13%3A31%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Extended%20wear%20hearing%20aids:%20a%20comparative,%20pilot%20study&rft.jtitle=European%20archives%20of%20oto-rhino-laryngology&rft.au=Gazia,%20Francesco&rft.date=2022-11-01&rft.volume=279&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=5415&rft.epage=5422&rft.pages=5415-5422&rft.issn=0937-4477&rft.eissn=1434-4726&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00405-022-07445-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2682260150%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2682260150&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |