Studies show that Ponto is patients’ first choice

A methodical review of studies 1–10, which compared Oticon Medical’s Ponto sound processor with other sound processors, reveals that when users had the opportunity to test the performance of two different devices in daily life, the majority chose Ponto. This was observed consistently across the studies in which patients were asked to rate their preference at the end of the test.1–5, 8, 1

Two out of three patients prefer Ponto

When focusing on studies in which both test devices – a Ponto sound processor and a competitor’s sound processor – are new to the patient, 1, 4, 5, 8 67% of patients opted to move forward with a Ponto sound processor at the end of the study. Patients ultimately decided to use Ponto sound processors due to several indicators of their premium performance, such as high ratings for speech understanding in quiet and in noise, better sound quality, less feedback, less annoyance caused by wind noise, and ease of handling. Less than a quarter of study participants selected the competitor’s products.

Ponto is patients' first choice in daily life: High rates in speech understanding, better sound quality and less feedback

Studies only comparing Ponto to BP100/BP110 1, 4, 5, 8

Ponto wins every time

The majority of patients preferred a Ponto sound processor over the competing brand in every single direct comparison study.1–5, 8, 10 Data was collected from a total of 100 patients, 72 of whom reported that they wanted to use the Ponto sound processor.

Direct comparison studies on Ponto

Direct comparison studies 1–5, 8, 10

About the studies

A systematic review of the literature was carried out to find studies that have been published or presented at international scientific conferences; all studies in which a Ponto sound processor was compared to another sound processor were included. We wanted to include all studies that have been presented, regardless of the results. We found a total of 10 studies that met these criteria. The data comprises the Ponto, Ponto Pro and Ponto Pro Power sound processors, first-time users as well as experienced users of other bone anchored hearing systems, and a variety of types of hearing loss.

 

Reference List

1. Olsen, S. et al. (2011). Comparison of two bone anchored hearing instruments: BP100 and Ponto Pro. International Journal of Audiology, 50, 920–928.
2. Bosman, A. et al. (2013). Evaluation of a powerful new bone-anchored hearing system: a comparison study. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24 (6), 505–13.
3. Oeding, K. & Valente, M. (2013). The effectiveness of the directional microphone in the Oticon Medical Ponto Pro. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24 (8), 701–13.
4. Hill-Feltham, P. et al. (2014). Digital processing technology for bone-anchored hearing aids: a randomised comparison of two devices in hearing aid users with a mixed or conductive hearing loss. Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 14, 1–9.
5. Busch, S. et al. Audiological results and patient satisfaction with Baha BP 110 and Ponto Pro Power: results from a prospective clinical study. Presentation at 4th International Symposium on Bone Conduction Hearing — Craniofacial Osseointegration, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, June 2013.
6. Soli et al. Within-subject comparison of speech perception in quiet and in noise for patients with single-sided deafness fitted with the BP100 and Ponto osseointegrated implant speech processors. Presentation at 12th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Other Implantable Auditory Technologies, Baltimore, USA, May, 2012.
7. Bosman, A. et al. Evaluation of Cochlear BP-100 and Oticon Ponto Pro sound processors. Poster at 3rd International Bone Conduction Hearing — Craniofacial Osseointegration (Osseo) Conference, Sarasota, USA, March 2011.
8. Ortega, C. et al. Performance of the Ponto Pro and BP 100 processors in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). Presentation at 3rd International Bone Conduction Hearing — Craniofacial Osseointegration (Osseo) Conference, Sarasota, USA, March 2011.
9. Stenfelt, S. Comparing two digital bone conduction hearing aids in experienced users: a two-centre study. Presentation at 3rd International Bone Conduction Hearing — Craniofacial Osseointegration (Osseo) Conference, Sarasota, USA, March 2011.
10. Olsen, S. et al. Field test of a new bone anchored system. Poster at 22nd Annual Convention of the American Academy of Audiology (AAA) — Audiology Now, San Diego, USA, April 2010.

Welcome
It looks like you are in the USA, do you want to visit your local website?
Go to your local website
Stay on the global website