Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness
| Affiliation auteurs | !!!! Error affiliation !!!! |
| Titre | Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid versus Transcutaneous Bone Conduction in Single-Sided Deafness |
| Type de publication | Journal Article |
| Year of Publication | 2015 |
| Auteurs | Leterme G, Bernardeschi D, Bensemman A, Coudert C, Portal J-J, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Vicaut E, Frachet B, Grayeli ABozorg |
| Journal | AUDIOLOGY AND NEURO-OTOLOGY |
| Volume | 20 |
| Pagination | 251-260 |
| Type of Article | Article |
| ISSN | 1420-3030 |
| Mots-clés | Contralateral routing of signal, Hearing aid, Rehabilitation, Single-sided deafness, Transcutaneous bone anchored device |
| Résumé | The aim of this study was to compare a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid to a transcutaneous bone-anchored device in the same conditions. This prospective crossover study included 18 adult patients with a single-sided deafness (SSD). After a trial period of 60 days with CROS and 7 days with a transcutaneous bone-anchored device (Alpha 1((R)), Sophono, Boulder, Colo., USA) on a headband, 13 (72%) patients opted for Alpha 1, 2 patients for CROS, and 3 rejected both rehabilitation methods. Clinical tolerance, satisfaction, hearing performances (pure-tone audiometry, speech test in quiet and in noise, stereo audiometry, sound localization, and Hearing in Noise Test), and quality of life (Glasgow Benefit Inventory, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit questionnaires) were measured at 3 and 12 months after the implantation. Both devices improved equally the hearing in noise and the quality of life. Transcutaneous devices represent an effective option in SSD. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel |
| DOI | 10.1159/000381329 |