The performance of CROS and BiCROS devices may improve as a result of developments in digital signal processing.
Of the 91 patients, 9 were fitted with a corded CROS device and 82 with a BiCROS device (figure 1), either corded (n = 73) or cordless (n = 9).
Two weeks after the end of the 30-day trial, we mailed a questionnaire to all patients, regardless of whether they chose to keep their CROS or BiCROS device.
Acceptance rates were high for both the CROS (66.7%) and BiCROS (73.2%) devices.
The highest overall mean value was 3.6 for the BiCROS corded device, and the lowest was 1.1 for both the CROS and the BiCROS cordless models.
(8) Additional research has been done in an attempt to better define the optimal CROS or BiCROS candidate and to improve methods of fitting these devices.
Despite system modifications, improvements in fitting methods, and some early reports (13,15,16) describing the benefits of CROS and BiCROS hearing aids, their use has remained limited, partly because other reports (12,14,17) and anecdotal accounts have detailed minimal benefits, numerous complaints, and low overall success rates.
Our study demonstrated that patient satisfaction with the new generation of digital CROS and BiCROS hearing aids was higher than that seen in previously reported studies.
Therefore, we believe that CROS and BiCROS corded heating aids should again be offered as a viable alternative for patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss.