Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Problem with Phonak lab in USA

This topic is closed.

6 replies664 viewsLast reply

Link to this topic
Edited

We have tried and tried to get molds that fit. I read the Phonak article about the benefits of a deep fitting mold and said, thats what i need. The problem is, i dont think the lab knows how to do it, or, there is some miscommunication between the lab and, now my third, audiologist.

“So, you want it long”. NO. I dont care how long it is. I just want it to end past the second bend, so it will 1) stay in, 2) no occlusion, and 3) no feedback.

The lab seems fixated on the faceplate being at the canal entrance. Cant they make ric molds similar in size/shape/placement to cic or iic? It is a Phonak , so wire length should not be an issue.

I wore power domes pushed in past the second bend, and they never budged during the day.

Going for my sixth impression and third remake Tuesday.

Does anybody have any ideas and/or guidance?

So, quick summary, Phonak article recommends deep fitting molds. Phonak lab apparently cant do that with C-Shell Ric mold.

6 people in this conversation2 min readJump to latest

I’ve heard of other people having problems with Phonak’s lab. You could try Westone.

I had good luck with Lloyd’s Hearing Aids for both and type aids.
The people there are knowledgeable and very helpful. They guarantee their molds so if they don’t fit right don’t waste time, call them back for a refit.
Good luck with this.

My first instinct is that there is some anatomical reason for needing the cShell faceplate nearer the canal aperture. I’ve definitely had cases where the ear canal diameter is too small for everything to fit in the receiver mold without bringing it further out, sometimes into the concha. It’s been a while since I’ve since a cShell broken so I could look at what’s happening where the wire attaches, but if it needs to be a certain diameter, then I imagine that kind of real estate gets harder to come by the deeper in you go.

I have asked manufacturers to recess the faceplate into the canal specifically due to physical discomfort, and they tend to be able to work with us, but I agree with you regarding comparisons to . If they are able to make IICs that start deeper, and that’s a whole hearing aid (minus stuff like wireless chips, Bluetooth, etc.), then I would imagine they could do the same with a cShell that definitionally has fewer components.

This has not come up clinically, but long story short, I have had luck including language on remake forms about physical discomfort.

Edited

I had trouble initially getting my acrylic Phonak to stay in, it would pop out getting dislodged while chewing food or talking. The lab added a canal lock which helped a lot. I understand there are several types/extents; mine is a small acrylic foot about 5/8" that extends out into my outer ear following the bottom contour of my ear. Others I’ve seen pictures of resemble a tiny tennis racquet and occupy more of the circle. Perhaps a modification like this might be of help.

Related discussions