METHODS: Survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters around the world, every year for 20 consecutive years (2000 to 2019). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey. Data were analysed for those countries reporting ≥ 1,000 contact lens fits during this period.
RESULTS: A total of 369,209 contact lens fits were recorded from 40 eligible countries, comprising 2,309 scleral lens fits and 366,900 other (non-scleral) lens fits. Overall scleral lenses represented 0.76 per cent of all contact lens fits with significant differences between countries (p
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study.
METHODS: Looped liners with hook fastener and Iceross Dermo Liner with pin/lock system were mechanically tested using a tensile testing machine in terms of system safety. A total of 10 transtibial amputees participated in this study and were asked to use these two different suspension systems. The pistoning was measured between the liner and socket through a photographic method. Three static axial loading conditions were implemented, namely, 30, 60, and 90 N. Furthermore, subjective feedback was obtained.
RESULTS: Tensile test results showed that both systems could safely tolerate the load applied to the prosthesis during ambulation. Clinical evaluation confirmed extremely low pistoning in both systems (i.e. less than 0.4 cm after adding 90 N traction load to the prosthesis). Subjective feedback also showed satisfaction with both systems. However, less traction at the end of the residual limb was reported while looped liner was used.
CONCLUSION: The looped liner with hook fastener is safe and a good alternative for individuals with transtibial amputation as this system could solve some problems with the current systems. Clinical relevance The looped liner and hook fastener were shown to be good alternative suspension for people with lower limb amputation especially those who have difficulty to use and align the pin/lock systems. This system could safely tolerate centrifugal forces applied to the prosthesis during normal and fast walking.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribed and measured gain of hearing aids fit according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v5 procedure for children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss; and to examine the impact of choice of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.
RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were fit with Phonak Naida V SP hearing aids according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures. The Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and estimated loudness were calculated using published models.
STUDY SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 16 children (30 ears) aged between 7 and 17 yr old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The measured hearing aid gains were compared with the prescribed gains at 50 (low), 65 (medium), and 80 dB SPL (high) input levels. The goodness of fit-to-targets was quantified by calculating the average root-mean-square (RMS) error of the measured gain compared with prescriptive gain targets for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The significance of difference between prescriptions for hearing aid gains, SII, and loudness was examined by performing analyses of variance. Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationship between measures.
RESULTS: The DSL v5 prescribed significantly higher overall gain than the NAL-NL1 procedure for the same audiograms. For low and medium input levels, the hearing aids of all children fit with NAL-NL1 were within 5 dB RMS of prescribed targets, but 33% (10 ears) deviated from the DSL v5 targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. For high input level, the hearing aid fittings of 60% and 43% of ears deviated by more than 5 dB RMS from targets of NAL-NL1 and DSL v5, respectively. Greater deviations from targets were associated with more severe hearing loss. On average, the SII was higher for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1 at low input level. No significant difference in SII was found between prescriptions at medium or high input level, despite greater loudness for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1.
CONCLUSIONS: Although targets between 0.25 and 2 kHz were well matched for both prescriptions in commercial hearing aids, gain targets at 4 kHz were matched for NAL-NL1 only. Although the two prescriptions differ markedly in estimated loudness, they resulted in comparable predicted speech intelligibility for medium and high input levels.