Audiological outcome

In comparing pure-tone-average-aided thresholds (PTA 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kHz) to unaided thresholds, a significant improvement was shown for both devices, and no significant difference was observed between devices. Looking at specific frequencies, a significant difference was observed at 4 and 6 kHz, at which BP110 provided more amplification compared to Ponto Pro Power.

A speech intelligibility test using the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test showed no significant difference between devices. Speech perception thresholds in noise using the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) showed a significant improvement for both devices in comparison to unaided, but the results did not differ between devices.

The authors conclude: “The discrepancy between objective audiometric results and subjective evaluation is evidence that tested listening situations in soundproof test rooms do not reflect real-life situations, and those audiometric tests are not able to screen differences between real-life performances in test subjects.”


About the study

The study was a prospective crossover study conducted at EC Hannover Medical Center. The study participants were 11 test subjects with a bone conduction hearing threshold ranging from 5 to 40 dB HL. The same test subjects completed audiological and subjective outcome measurements with two different devices, tested in sequential order. First, fitting was completed with one device, followed by a test period of 3 weeks. The researchers then performed audiological and subjective outcome measurements on this device, after which the other device was fitted and tested. Device test order was randomized in order to avoid bias.

 

 

Reference:
Busch, S., Giere, T., Lenarz, T. & Maier, H. (2015) Comparison of Audiological Results and Patient Satisfaction for Two Osseointegrated Bone Conduction Devices: Results of a Prospective Study. Otology & Neurology. Jun; 36(5): 842–48.

Study shows majority of users favor Ponto sound processors

 Busch, Giere, Lenarz and Maier (2015) showed that Ponto Pro Power users experienced greater satisfaction when using Ponto Pro Power (Oticon Medical) compared to BP110 (Cochlear). This benefit is indicated by the significantly higher overall scores on subjective outcome measurements, particularly in test subscales for speech hearing and spatial hearing. Ponto Pro Power users were less likely to experience wind annoyance and difficulty adjusting their volume controls when compared to BP110 users.
Test subjects also reported the Ponto Pro Power to be more comfortable to wear outdoors when compared with BP110 users. In fact, 9 of 11 test subjects selected the Ponto Pro Power when asked which device they preferred at the end of the study.

APHAB benefit scores

Questionnaires regarding subjective outcome show a favorable performance for Ponto Pro Power

The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale–Comparative (SSQ-C), two standardized and widely used questionnaires, were used to evaluate and compare the benefit performance of the two test devices, which were new to all test subjects.

For the APHAB, the overall mean scores showed a significant difference between Ponto Pro Power and BP110, with test subjects reporting fewer problems and favorable performance with the Ponto Pro Power.

APHAB benefit scores (%)

Figure 1. This section of the APHAB ratings is converted to benefit scores.

Majority of users prefer Ponto Sound Processors due to its favorable performance

The SSQ revealed an advantage for the Ponto Pro Power over the BP110. In the speech hearing subscale, 8 of 11 test subjects rated the Ponto Pro Power as being better than the BP110. For this subscale, only one test subject preferred the BP110 device, and two test subjects felt that both devices were equal in performance. In the spatial hearing subscale, 9 of 11 test subjects rated the Ponto Pro Power to be better (5 test subjects) or equal (4 test subjects) to the BP110. In the quality of hearing subscale, 10 of 12 test subjects rated the Ponto Pro Power as being better (5 test subjects) or equal (5 test subjects) compared to BP110.

Device preference for SSQ test subscales

Figure 2. The individual preference of each test subject (n = 11) shows a higher preference for Ponto Pro Power compared to BP110 for all subscales.