Bance Manohar, Abel Sharon M, Papsin Blake C, Wade Philip, Vendramini Judy
Department of Otolaryngology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Otol Neurotol. 2002 Nov;23(6):912-9. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200211000-00017.
To compare the function of bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA) with conventional air conduction hearing aids (ACHA) by means of objective audiometric tests focusing on temporal acuity and consonant discrimination in quiet and noise, as well as subjective quality-of-life questionnaires.
Tertiary referral center.
Prospective.
Patients using BAHAs because of profuse drainage from chronic suppurative otitis media, and a comparison group of healthy volunteers.
Objective measures: sound field audiograms, duration discrimination, gap discrimination, and final and initial consonant discrimination in quiet and in noise. Subjective measures: Sanders' Profiles, MOS SF-36 questionnaire.
Normal-hearing subjects always performed better than hearing-impaired patients in all tests. When the BAHA was compared with the ACHA, there were no significant differences in any of the measures.
The BAHA and the ACHA provided similar audiometric functioning in audiometric tests. The BAHA, although using a nonphysiologic sound conduction route, did not sacrifice temporal processing ability or speech perception in noise, and should be considered for patients with profuse ear drainage.
通过专注于安静和噪声环境下的时间分辨力及辅音辨别能力的客观听力测试以及主观生活质量调查问卷，比较骨锚式助听器（BAHA）与传统气导助听器（ACHA）的功能。
三级转诊中心。
前瞻性研究。
因慢性化脓性中耳炎大量耳漏而使用BAHA的患者，以及健康志愿者对照组。
客观指标：声场听力图、时长辨别、间隙辨别以及安静和噪声环境下的终辅音和首辅音辨别。主观指标：桑德斯量表、MOS SF-36问卷。
在所有测试中，听力正常的受试者表现始终优于听力受损患者。将BAHA与ACHA进行比较时，各项指标均无显著差异。
在听力测试中，BAHA和ACHA的听力功能相似。BAHA尽管采用非生理性的声音传导途径，但并未牺牲时间处理能力或噪声环境下的言语感知能力，对于大量耳漏患者应考虑使用。
