Background: Bonebridge (BB) and bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA) are effective in patients with bilateral congenital microtia-atresia (CMA).Objectives: To investigate and compare the outcomes of these devices in a large sample size.Materials and methods: This single center prospective study involved 100 patients with bilateral CMA who were implanted with BBs and used BCHAs before implantation. Sound field threshold (SFT), speech reception thresholds (SRTs) and word recognition scores (WRSs) were compared between unaided, BCHA used and implanted patients. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to evaluate subjective satisfaction.Results: Compared to unaided condition, the SFT, WRS and SRT of BCHA and BB were significantly improved. With BCHA or BB, the three subscale scores of the APHAB (ease of communication, background noise and reverberation) significantly reduced. However, the aversiveness subscale scored significantly higher than unaided condition. All outcomes were better in BB condition than BCHA.Conclusions: BB or BCHA use can be considered as effective methods to improve audiological outcomes and subjective satisfaction. Although not as good as BB, BCHA use is critical for improving hearing in the early period of language and auditory pathway development before the skull is suitable for BB implantation.
Keywords: Congenital microtia-atresia; audiology; bone conduction hearing aids; bonebridge; hearing rehabilitation.