Abstract The cases of ear malformations, conductive, mixed, and single-sided deafness hearing loss are candidates for surgery and use of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids (BAHA). Commonly, the literature highlights two procedures to assess the benefits and characteristics of amplification in users: functional gain (FG) and effective gain (EG). Objective Estimate and compare the EG and the FG to evaluate the benefits obtained by users of BAHA and, later, to compare tests of speech perception in silence and in noise. Methodology The sample (n=79) was divided into four groups, implanted from February 2014 to February 2021. The following tests were analyzed: pure-tone audiometry by air and bone; research of audiometric thresholds in free field; speech perception tests in silence and in noise. Results EG presented lower values than FG in all frequencies. The positive results of the speech perception tests were correlated with worse FG values. EG is the best method for evaluation, as it allows a proper comparison between devices, as well as a comparison with the prescription of validated rules. Conclusions A better evaluation of results was observed on the EG values, indicating that it is a relevant method to assess auditory performance. In addition, the FG results were incompatible with the benefits obtained in the speech perception tests, showing that it is not a reliable tool for monitoring the results with the use of BAHA.

RESUMO Objetivo Verificar o benefício obtido pela prescrição de ganho acústico baseada nos limiares audiométricos obtidos com tons puros (Warble) e com ruído de faixa estreita (NB). Método Amostra de 30 idosos, com idade igual ou superior a 60 anos, perda auditiva neurossensorial de grau moderado a severo simétrica bilateral de configuração descendente com limiares em 4kHz iguais ou inferiores a 70dBNA. Foram dois grupos. GTP (grupo tom puro): 15 idosos tiveram as próteses auditivas adaptadas com emprego dos limiares obtidos com tom puro e grupo GNB (grupo Narrowband): 15 idosos tiveram as próteses auditivas adaptadas por meio dos limiares obtidos com NB. Os procedimentos realizados antes da adaptação de próteses auditivas e após três meses de uso de amplificação foram: Escala COSI, IPRF (Índice Percentual de Reconhecimento de fala), Relação Sinal/Ruído e análise do tempo de uso do AASI. O Questionário Internacional de Aparelho de Amplificação Sonora Individual (QI-AASI) foi aplicado após três meses. Resultados Os idosos do grupo em que as próteses auditivas foram adaptadas com ganho prescrito com base nos limiares auditivos obtidos com o estímulo Narrow Band apresentaram melhor desempenho nos seguintes testes: IPRF à orelha direita, pontuação total do questionário QI-AASI, escala COSI e maior tempo de uso do AASI em comparação ao grupo GTP. Conclusão Observou-se maior benefício com o uso de próteses auditivas, pela pontuação total do questionário QI-AASI, escala COSI e maior tempo de uso do AASI, no grupo cuja prescrição do ganho acústico baseou-se nos limiares audiométricos obtidos com o Narrowband.

ABSTRACT Purpose To verify the benefit obtained by the prescription of acoustic gain based on the auditory thresholds obtained with pure tones modulated in frequency and with Narrow Band Noise. Methods The sample consisted of 30 elderly people, aged 60 years or over with moderate to severe descending sensorineural symmetrical hearing loss with thresholds at 4kHz equal to or less than 70dBHL. There were two groups. GTP (pure tone group): 15 elderly people had their hearing aids fitted through the auditory thresholds obtained with pure tone and the GNB group (narrow band group): 15 elderly people had their hearing aids fitted through the auditory thresholds obtained with NB. The procedures performed before the fitting of hearing aids and after three months of amplification use were: COSI, WRS (Word Recognition Score), Signal/Noise ratio. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) was applied only after three months of hearing aid fitting. Results The elderly people in the group in which the hearing aids were fitted with a prescribed gain based on the hearing thresholds obtained with the Narrow Band stimulus showed better performance in the following tests: WRS on the right ear, total score of the IOI-HA inventory, COSI and longer use of hearing aids compared to the GTP group. Conclusion There was a greater benefit with the use of hearing aids, due to the total score of the IOI-HA inventory, COSI scale and longer daily use time of hearing aids, in the group whose prescription of acoustic gain was based on the auditory thresholds obtained with narrow band.