Children with single-sided deafness often receive inconsistent clinical recommendations because there is currently no clear best practice in paediatric single-sided deafness. This systematic review of the literature aimed to compare commonly used treatments and attempted to support the use of a particular treatment modality.

This was a comprehensive literature review from 1 January 2000 to 22 February 2022; the study compared the outcomes of bone conduction devices and cochlear implantation in paediatric patients with single-sided deafness.

Fifteen studies consisting of 202 patients were examined. Variables including speech reception in quiet and noise, as well as quality of life measures were compared. Both cochlear implantation and bone-anchored hearing aids demonstrated benefits in sound perception. Quality of life measures improved with both modalities.

Although both bone-anchored hearing aids and cochlear implantation appear to provide significant improvements, additional research with more direct comparisons is needed to provide more decisive results.

This study aimed to evaluate surgical and functional outcomes, in a tertiary referral centre, of two different types of semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction devices.

This study involved prospective data collection and review of patients implanted between November 2014 and December 2016. Glasgow Hearing Aid Inventory (Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile or Glasgow Hearing Aid Difference Profile) and Client Oriented Scale of Improvement were completed where appropriate. Surgical and audiological outcomes were recorded in the surgical notes.

Glasgow Hearing Aid Difference Profile and Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile showed similar mean score in the active and the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement showed improvements in listening situations. Post-operative speech reception threshold showed better mean threshold in the active transcutaneous bone conduction devices group when compared with the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices group. No device failures or surgical complications existed in either group, with the surgical time being less in the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices group.

Both devices are reliable semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction devices with excellent surgical and functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. Overall surgical time was much less in the passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices group with no necessity for pre-planning. This is much easier to remove with the possibility of conversion to other devices in the manufacturer’s portfolio and wide-ranging wireless accessories. Further studies are needed to assess the longer-term results in a bigger population.