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.

To assess hearing rehabilitation in patients with congenital aural atresia using an active middle-ear implant (Vibrant Soundbridge).

Of a cohort of 70 microtia and atresia patients, 10 underwent Vibrant Soundbridge implantation between 2008 and 2021. Two of the 10 patients had binaural implantation, resulting in 12 ears for analysis. Pre- and post-operative audiometry data were analysed, and patient satisfaction was evaluated. Surgical issues regarding coupling sites and outcomes were analysed.

Pure tone average (0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz) improved from a pre-operative mean (standard deviation) of 65.3 (8.7) dB HL to a post-operative mean of 26.8 (4.9) dB HL. This resulted in a mean pure tone average gain of 38.5 dB HL. The results indicate no obvious difference between stapes (n = 8) and incus (n = 4) coupling. The mean effective gain for 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz was −17.8 dB HL (standard deviation = 4.3). Concerning effective gain, Vibrant Soundbridge performed best at 2 kHz. Patients reported high overall satisfaction, good sound quality and strongly improved directional hearing.

An active middle-ear implant (Vibrant Soundbridge) allows hearing rehabilitation in selected atretic ears, and provides long-term hearing stability in children and adults.

Osia is a new, transcutaneous, active bone-conduction implant. This study aimed to compare the BAHA Attract and the first-generation Osia system after BAHA Attract to Osia conversion surgery.

Five patients who had previously used the BAHA Attract system were converted to the first generation of the Osia system. Surgical aspects of the two different systems, audiological performance and subjective opinions of the patients were investigated. Pure tone audiometry and speech audiometry in quiet was performed with each patient's BAHA 5 sound processor on Attract, and the test battery was repeated six weeks after the Attract to Osia conversion and at different time points after the first fitting. Details of the surgery and patients' feedback were analysed.

Audiology tests showed significant improvement when using either system; however, the Osia system performance was better. Based on patient feedback, all the five implantees preferred the Osia system.

The study results suggest that the Osia system is a safe and powerful hearing implant that provides good clinical outcomes.

This study aimed to evaluate hearing outcomes and device safety in a large, single-surgeon experience with the totally implantable active middle-ear implants.

This was a retrospective case series review of 116 patients with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss undergoing implantation of active middle-ear implants.

Mean baseline unaided pure tone average improved from 57.6 dB before surgery to 34.1 dB post-operatively, signifying a mean gain in pure tone average of 23.5 dB (p = 0.0002). Phonetically balanced maximum word recognition score improved slightly from 70.5 per cent to 75.8 per cent (p = 0.416), and word recognition score at a hearing level of 50 dB values increased substantially from 14.4 per cent to 70.4 per cent (p < 0.0001). Both revision and explant rates were low and dropped with increasing surgeon experience over time.

This study showed excellent post-operative hearing results with active middle-ear implants with regard to pure tone average and word recognition score at a hearing level of 50 db. Complication rates in this case series were significantly lower with increasing experience of the surgeon. Active middle-ear implants should be considered in appropriate patients with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss who have struggled with conventional amplification and are good surgical candidates.

The occurrence of retained ear mould impression material is rare and can lead to complications. The current case report describes one such complication, where the silicone impression material used to take the impression of the ear canal flowed into the middle ear through the pre-existing tympanic membrane perforation. Five days later, the patient presented with worsened hearing and blood-tinged discharge from the ear. Ear microscopy revealed a greenish foreign body in the middle ear.

The foreign body was removed by tympanotomy and the perforation repaired using a temporalis fascia graft. A hearing aid was prescribed after ensuring that the perforation had healed.

It is essential that the audiologist perform a basic otological examination before prescribing a hearing aid and preparing an ear mould. A clinical approach algorithm for audiologists, for prior to taking an impression, is suggested.

The audiological benefits of a bone conducting hearing implant are well documented; however, there is a paucity of literature comparing pre- and post-operative quality of life benefits. This study assessed the quality of life status before and after the device is implanted.

A prospective study was conducted of all adult bone conducting hearing implants inserted in a teaching hospital between 2012 and 2017. All patients completed the Glasgow Health Status Inventory, a validated quality of life questionnaire, before and three to six months after implantation.

Sixty-two patients received a unilateral bone conducting hearing implant. All scores except the social score improved post-operatively. The paired t-test showed that the differences in the means for the Glasgow Health Status Inventory total, general and physical scores were statistically significant at the 5 per cent level (p < 0.0001).

This study, one of the few to assess quality of life pre- and post-implantation, showed a vast improvement in patients’ perceived quality of life from the pre- to the post-operative phase.

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.

To compare soft-tissue complications following implantation of different bone conduction hearing devices.

Adults who underwent implantation of different bone conduction hearing devices, between January 2008 and December 2016, were included in the study. Five groups were identified depending on the soft-tissue approach: (1) split-thickness skin flap with use of dermatome; (2) Sheffield ‘S’-shaped incision with skin thinning; (3) linear incision without skin thinning (hydroxyapatite-coated abutment); (4) ‘C’-shaped full-thickness incision for passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices; and (5) post-aural incision for active transcutaneous bone conduction hearing devices. The main outcome measures were different soft-tissue complications.

The study comprised 120 patients (group 1 = 20 patients, group 2 = 35, group 3 = 35, group 4 = 20, and group 5 = 10). Soft tissue related problems were encountered in 55 per cent of patients from group 1, 26 per cent in group 2, 3 per cent in group 3, and 0 per cent in groups 4 and 5.

There was a reduction in soft tissue related complications with reduced soft-tissue handling. In addition, there was a shift from an initial skin-penetrating (percutaneous) approach to a non-skin-penetrating (transcutaneous) approach.

A direct acoustic cochlear implant provides its power directly to the inner ear by vibrating the perilymph via a conventional stapes prosthesis. Our experience with a patient with severe mixed hearing loss due to otosclerosis is described.

The patient, a 47-year-old male, had a pre-operative speech recognition score of 10 per cent and had been treated for many years for schizophrenia, both of which made him a poor candidate for a direct acoustic stimulation device. Nevertheless, the surgery was performed, which preserved the pre-operative bone conduction level and significantly improved hearing. His speech recognition score rose to 100 per cent. He uses the device all day and his auditory hallucinations have subsided. Improvement of schizophrenia symptoms has enabled the patient to reduce his psychiatric medications intake.

Hearing restoration was the main reason for the reduction of auditory hallucinations in our patient. Hearing loss is a potentially reversible risk factor for psychosis, but this association is often overlooked.

To investigate the surgical and audiological outcomes of the Bonebridge transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant among children with congenital aural atresia.

Six children were recruited and underwent Bonebridge transcutaneous bone conduction implant surgery. The patients’ audiometric thresholds for air conduction, bone conduction and sound-field tests were assessed pre-operatively and at six months post-operatively. Patients’ satisfaction was assessed at six months post-operatively with the Hearing Device Satisfaction Scale.

No major complications were reported. Mean aided sound-field thresholds improved post-operatively by more than 30 dB for 0.5–4 kHz (p < 0.05). Mean unaided air conduction and bone conduction thresholds differed by less than 5 dB post-operatively (compared to pre-operatively) for 0.5–4 kHz; these findings were not significant (p > 0.05). All patients were satisfied (scores were over 90 per cent) with the implant in terms of functional outcome and cosmetic appearance.

Bonebridge transcutaneous bone conduction implant surgery is safe and effective among children with congenital aural atresia with conductive hearing loss.

The percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device can be associated with more soft tissue complications when compared to the magnetic transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device. This study aimed to determine whether fewer soft tissue complications may result in the transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device being a lower cost option in hearing rehabilitation.

This retrospective case note review included adult patients who underwent implantation with the transcutaneous Cochlear Attract (n = 22) or percutaneous Cochlear DermaLock (n = 25) bone-anchored hearing aids between September 2013 and December 2014. The number of post-operative clinic appointments, complications and treatments undertaken, and calculated cost average, were compared between the two groups.

Although the transcutaneous device was slightly more expensive than the percutaneous device, the percutaneous device was associated with a greater number of soft tissue complications and, as a result, the percutaneous device had significantly higher follow-up costs in the first six months following surgery.

The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device.

Bone-anchored hearing aids improve hearing for patients for whom conventional behind-the-ear aids are problematic. However, uptake of bone-anchored hearing aids is low and it is important to understand why this is the case.

A narrative review was conducted. Studies examining why people accept or decline bone-anchored hearing aids and satisfaction levels of people with bone-anchored hearing aids were reviewed.

Reasons for declining bone-anchored hearing aids included limited perceived benefits, concerns about surgery, aesthetic concerns and treatment cost. No studies providing in-depth analysis of the reasons for declining or accepting bone-anchored hearing aids were identified. Studies of patient satisfaction showed that most participants reported benefits with bone-anchored hearing aids. However, most studies used cross-sectional and/or retrospective designs and only included people with bone-anchored hearing aids.

Important avenues for further research are in-depth qualitative research designed to fully understand the decision-making process for bone-anchored hearing aids and rigorous quantitative research comparing satisfaction of people who receive bone-anchored hearing aids with those who receive alternative (or no) treatments.

To compare the skin-related complications of the traditional skin flap method with a linear incision method of implantation.

All cases of bone-anchored hearing aid surgery performed by a single surgeon (n = 117) were compared over two periods: 1999–2011, when the traditional method of skin flap and soft tissue removal was used (group 1; n = 86), and 2012–2013, when linear incision without soft tissue removal was used (group 2; n = 31). All patients were followed up for one year and complications were recorded for that period.

There were 21 (24.4 per cent) skin-related complications in group 1 (skin overgrowth = 12, wound infection = 8 and numbness = 1) and 3 (9.7 per cent) complications in group 2 (wound infection = 3). Analysis using independent t-tests showed the results to be significant (p < 0.05; 95 per cent confidence interval = 0.0800–0.4473).

The linear incision without soft tissue removal method for bone-anchored hearing aid implantation reduces skin complication rates.

To compare the auditory outcomes of Carina middle-ear implants with those of conventional hearing aids in patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss.

The study comprised nine patients (six males, three females) who underwent middle-ear implantation with Carina fully implantable active middle-ear implants to treat bilateral moderate-to-severe mixed hearing loss. The patients initially used conventional hearing aids and subsequently received the Carina implants. The hearing thresholds with implants and hearing aids were compared.

There were no significant differences between: the pre-operative and post-operative air and bone conduction thresholds (p > 0.05), the thresholds with hearing aids and Carina implants (p > 0.05), or the pre-operative (mean, 72.8 ± 19 per cent) and post-operative (mean, 69.9 ± 24 per cent) speech discrimination scores (p > 0.05). One of the patients suffered total sensorineural hearing loss three months following implantation despite an initial 38 dB functional gain. All except one patient showed clinical improvements after implantation according to quality of life questionnaire (Glasgow Benefit Inventory) scores.

Acceptance of Carina implants is better than with conventional hearing aids in patients with mixed hearing loss, although both yield similar hearing amplification. Cosmetic reasons appear to be critical for patient acceptance.

The Vibrant Soundbridge is an active middle-ear implant for hearing rehabilitation that is usually placed in the long process of the incus or round window. This study reports on the unusual implant attachment to the short process of the incus in a patient with ear malformation, and describes their audiological and clinical outcomes.

Case report and literature review.

Audiological evaluation with the Vibrant Soundbridge implant showed a pure tone average of 31 dB. The speech test, at 65 dB HL, revealed correct recognition of 92 per cent of disyllabic words. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile showed high levels of satisfaction, hearing aid use and benefit.

Fixation of the Vibrant Soundbridge implant on the short process of the incus is a feasible option, with good clinical and audiological outcomes. Coupling the floating mass transducer to the short process of the incus is a good surgical option, especially when the long process and the oval or round window are inaccessible.

To report a case of successful bone-anchored hearing aid implantation in an adult patient with type III osteogenesis imperfecta, which is commonly regarded as a contraindication to this procedure.

A 45-year-old man with type III osteogenesis imperfecta presented with mixed hearing loss. There was a mild sensorineural component in both ears, with an air–bone gap between 45 and 50 dB HL. He was implanted with a bone-anchored hearing aid. The audiological outcome was good, with no complications and good implant stability (as measured by resonance frequency analysis).

To our knowledge, this is the first recorded case of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation in a patient with osteogenesis imperfecta.

Since their introduction in 1977, the technology and surgical techniques surrounding the use and application of bone-anchored hearing devices have developed considerably.

This article reviews current developments in the use of bone-anchored hearing devices, looking at the possible options for patients, complications encountered and future possibilities.

Advances in surgical technique are described, with the move towards the use of linear incisions and no soft tissue reduction. Methods for preventing complications are analysed, with review of different abutments and the introduction of the active bone conduction implant.

The bone-anchored hearing aid implantation technique is associated with post-operative skin reactions, which require conservative therapy and, in some cases, replacement of the abutment. Z-plasty is a technique that allows resection of the granulation tissue, thus ensuring that disease-free skin will be in contact with the abutment.

Use of the Z-plasty technique for resection of the peri-abutment granulation tissue is described. In the case presented herein, the episodes of skin reaction became very frequent and the patient was unable to use his bone-anchored hearing aid for 2 to 3 days a week. We opted for surgical treatment with Z-plasty for management of the skin complications.

Use of the Z-plasty technique is recommended for the management of skin reactions associated with bone-anchored hearing aid implantation.

This study aimed to report the bone-anchored hearing aid uptake and the reasons for their rejection by unilateral sensorineural deafness patients.

A retrospective review of 90 consecutive unilateral sensorineural deafness patients referred to the Greater Manchester Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Programme between September 2008 and August 2011 was performed.

In all, 79 (87.8 per cent) were deemed audiologically suitable: 24 (30.3 per cent) eventually had a bone-anchored hearing aid implanted and 55 (69.6 per cent) patients declined. Of those who declined, 26 (47.3 per cent) cited perceived limited benefits, 18 (32.7 per cent) cited reservations regarding surgery, 13 (23.6 per cent) preferred a wireless contralateral routing of sound device and 12 (21.8 per cent) cited cosmetic reasons. In all, 32 (40.5 per cent) suitable patients eventually chose the wireless contralateral routing of sound device.

The uptake rate was 30 per cent for audiologically suitable patients. Almost half of suitable patients did not perceive a sufficient benefit to proceed to device implantation and a significant proportion rejected it. It is therefore important that clinicians do not to rush to implant all unilateral sensorineural hearing loss patients with a bone-anchored hearing aid.