Background: Treatment options for congenital aural atresia (CAA) include canaloplasty and implantation of an osseointegrated bone conduction device (OBCD). Few studies have compared hearing outcomes in these two treatment methods.
Objectives: Hearing outcomes and revision surgery rates were compared in CAA patients managed by canaloplasty and surgically implanted OBCD.
Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 36 patients with CAA at a single institution. The same surgeon performed canaloplasty on 23 patients. Hearing outcomes before surgery as well as 3 and 6 months after surgery were compared to those of 13 patients with OBCD implantation.
Results: Postoperative hearing outcomes were better in the OBCD group, but the difference was not statistically significant. At 6-month follow-up, the hearing thresholds in the canaloplasty and OBCD group were 38.6 ± 21.4 and 31.9 ± 6.4 dB, respectively. The success rates 6 months after surgery were 75.0% in the canaloplasty group and 100% in the OBCD group. Two out of 23 patients in the canaloplasty group and 7 out of 13 patients in the OBCD group underwent revision surgery.
Conclusion: In terms of hearing, the outcome was better with the OBCD compared to canaloplasty. Canaloplasty may be an alternative option in patients who refuse OBCD implantation.
Keywords: Congenital aural atresia; bone conduction device; canaloplasty; hearing outcome.