الفهرس 
Aim of the WorkOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 113 |  |  |
| | | from | 113 | | |
Abstract
Amplification of sound by hearing aids bypasses the conductive
deficit as well as delivering magnified sound to the remaining functioning
hair cells in the cochlea. As it is well established that hearing aids are most
effective for patients with mild to moderate hearing loss and cochlear
implants are reserved for those with severe to profound hearing
deficiencies, the group with moderate to severe hearing loss needed an
innovative option to meet their needs; the use of implantable hearing
systems. Bone conduction hearing devices are considered a subdivision of
the implantable hearing solutions. Bone conduction devices are classified
regarding their mechanism of action into active or passive, and regarding
their way of sound conduction in relation to skin barrier into transcutaneous
or percutaneous devices.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of BCHDs in
rehabilitation of hearing loss. Also, we aimed at recording the
postoperative skin complications and comparison of transcutaneous and
percutaneous devices concerning this.
This study was a prospective comparative cohort study conducted in
the regional department of Otology and Neurotology – Sheffield Teaching
Hospitals in the United Kingdom spanning the period between 1st
December 2018 and 30th November 2020.
Patients were recruited through the outpatient clinics of the
otorhinolaryngology department, Royal Hallamshire Hospital. All patients
attended the OPD via either a referral letter from their allocated General
Practitioner or as internal referral from other general ENT clinics within the same department.
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, seventy-four
patients were recruited into our study; patients were allocated into two
groups after counseling regarding type of device available, patient general
assessment and patient preference of the device. Four patients were
excluded from the study due to various reasons (two patients lost follow up,
one patient discontinued using the device and one patient wasn‘t happy to
be enrolled in the study), therefore the final number of patients included
was 70 patients.