Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Real ear measurement (REM) and auditory performances with open, tulip and double closed dome in patients using hearing aids

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the study is to evaluate the importance of acoustic modifications generated by different commercially available ear-tips, focused on domes of receiver in the canal hearing aids using Real Ear Measurement (REM).

Methods

We enrolled 110 people selecting 200 ears bearers of hearing aids. In every patient, we performed REM and audiological tests with three different dome types: Open, Tulip and Double Closed (DC). Data about real-ear occluded gain (REOG), Pure Tone Average (PTA), Word Recognition Score (WRS) with aids switched on in Free Field, Ear and Auditory Comfort were collected and analyzed.

Results

REOG gain was statistically significant different between the three types of dome, with a DC that always closes the external auditory canal (EAC) (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the PTA (p = 0.11). Regarding the WRS there were statistically significant differences between Open and DC dome (p < 0.001) and between Tulip and DC dome (p < 0.001), with worse discrimination when using DC. Both auditory and ear comfort are worse in the DC than in the other two domes (p < 0.001). From measured REOG gain values, in 135 cases Tulip dome does not occlude the EAC, with a statistically significant difference compared to DC (p < 0.001; Odd Ratio 0.0012; 95% CI 0.001–0.0196).

Conclusion

Our study confirms the necessity to perform REM to evaluate if the prescription target is achieved, especially when tulip domes are used, because they may not occlude the ear canal, causing in some cases the reduction of the vocal discrimination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ciodaro F, Freni F, Mannella VK, Gazia F, Maceri A, Bruno R et al (2019) Use of 3D volume rendering based on high-resolution computed tomography temporal bone in patients with cochlear implants. Am J Case Rep 20:184–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Galletti B, Gazia F, Freni F, Nicita RA, Bruno R, Galletti F (2019) chronic otitis media associated with cholesteatoma in a case of the Say-Barber-Biesecker-Young-Simpson Variant of Ohdo Syndrome. Am J Case Rep 20:175–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amorini M, Romeo P, Bruno R, Galletti F, Di Bella C, Longo P et al (2015) Prevalence of Deafness-Associated Connexin-26 (GJB2) and Connexin-30 (GJB6) Pathogenic Alleles in a Large Patient Cohort from Eastern Sicily. Ann Hum Genet 79(5):341–349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kiessling J (2001) Hearing aid fitting procedures–state-of-the-art and current issues. Scand Audiol Suppl 52:57–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Levitt H (1992) Adaptive procedures for hearing aid prescription and other audiologic applications. J Am Acad Audiol 3(2):119–131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Winkler A, Latzel M, Holube I (2016) Open versus closed hearing-aid fittings: a literature review of both fitting approaches. Trends Hear 15:20

    Google Scholar 

  7. Robinson SR, Nguyen CT, Allen JB (2013) Characterizing the ear canal acoustic impedance and reflectance by pole-zero fitting. Hear Res 301:168–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jespersen CT, Møller KN (2013) Reliability of real ear insertion gain in behind-the-ear hearing aids with different coupling systems to the ear canal. Int J Audiol 52(3):169–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Denys S, Latzel M, Francart T, Wouters J (2019) A preliminary investigation into hearing aid fitting based on automated real-ear measurements integrated in the fitting software: test-retest reliability, matching accuracy and perceptual outcomes. Int J Audiol 58(3):132–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scollie S, Bagatto M, Moodie S, Crukley J (2011) Accuracy and reliability of a real-ear-to-coupler difference measurement procedure implemented within a behind-the-ear hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 22(9):612–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vaisberg JM, Folkeard P, Pumford J, Narten P, Scollie S (2018) Evaluation of the repeatability and accuracy of the wideband real-ear-to-coupler difference. J Am Acad Audiol 29(6):520–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Munro KJ, Toal S (2005) Measuring the real-ear to coupler difference transfer function with an insert earphone and a hearing instrument: are they the same? Ear Hear 26(1):27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moodie S, Pietrobon J, Rall E, Lindley G, Eiten L, Gordey D et al (2016) Using the real-ear-to-coupler difference within the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Protocols for Applying and Predicting Earmold RECDs. J Am Acad Audiol 27(3):264–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gustafson S, Pittman A, Fanning R (2013) Effects of tubing length and coupling method on hearing threshold and real-ear to coupler difference measures. Am J Audiol 22(1):190–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bagatto M, Moodie S, Scollie S, Seewald R, Moodie S, Pumford J et al (2005) Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the Desired Sensation Level method. Trends Amplif 9(4):199–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Munro KJ, Millward KE (2006) The influence of RECD transducer when deriving real-ear sound pressure level. Ear Hear 27(4):409–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gazia F, Abita P, Alberti G, Loteta S, Longo P, Caminiti F et al (2019) NICU infants & SNHL: experience of a western Sicily tertiary care centre. Acta Medica Mediterranea 35(2):1001–1007

    Google Scholar 

  18. Munro KJ, Salisbury VA (2002) Is the real-ear to coupler difference independent of the measurement earphone? Int J Audiol 41(7):408–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Galletti F, Freni F, Gazia F, Galletti B (2019) Endomeatal approach in cochlear implant surgery in a patient with small mastoid cavity and procident lateral sinus. BMJ Case Rep 12(6)

  20. Bagatto MP, Scollie SD, Seewald RC, Moodie KS, Hoover BM (2002) Real-ear-to-coupler difference predictions as a function of age for two coupling procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 13(8):407–415

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stuart A, Butler AK, Jones SM, Jones TA (2013) Real-ear output measures of ear level fluency devices. Int J Audiol 52(6):413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria 1, 98125, Messina, ME, Italy

    Francesco Gazia, Bruno Galletti, Daniele Portelli, Giuseppe Alberti, Francesco Freni, Rocco Bruno & Francesco Galletti

Authors
  1. Francesco Gazia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruno Galletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniele Portelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuseppe Alberti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco Freni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rocco Bruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Francesco Galletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Gazia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gazia, F., Galletti, B., Portelli, D. et al. Real ear measurement (REM) and auditory performances with open, tulip and double closed dome in patients using hearing aids. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 1289–1295 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05822-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05822-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation