To compare the effectiveness of implanted and non-implanted hearing solutions on subjective hearing disability and health-related quality of life in adults with acquired single-sided deafness.
✦ The floor
Discussion
Signed responses from readers of the wire.
Clinicians counseling adults with acquired single-sided deafness (SSD) should weigh this meta-analytic evidence that patients report higher subjective benefit and quality of life with implanted solutions, which may support earlier implant candidacy discussions.
This meta-analysis provides the strongest synthesized evidence to date on patient-reported device preference in acquired SSD, directly informing rehabilitation pathways and shared decision-making conversations.
- 01Systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Laryngology & Otology.
- 02Adults with acquired single-sided deafness preferred invasive (implanted) hearing solutions over non-invasive options.
- 03Preference was measured on subjective disability and quality-of-life outcomes.
- 04Implanted options include cochlear implants and bone-anchored/bone-conduction implants; non-invasive includes CROS hearing aids.
- 05Findings support reconsidering rehabilitation counseling to discuss implant options earlier with SSD patients.
Adults with acquired single-sided deafness prefer invasive implanted hearing solutions over non-invasive options on subjective disability and quality-of-life measures.
studysupported- PMID
- 42929386
- DOI
- 10.1017/S0022215126105891.
- Journal
- Journal of Laryngology & Otology
- Publication type
- meta_analysis
- Evidence level
- 1a
- Population
- Adults with acquired single-sided deafness
- Intervention
- Invasive implanted hearing solutions (e.g., cochlear implants, bone-anchored hearing devices)
- Comparator
- Non-invasive hearing solutions (e.g., CROS hearing aids)
Primary outcomes
Subjective hearing disability; Health-related quality of life; Patient device preference