ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare audiological and speech/language discrimination results in patients with osteo-integrated auditory devices, by comparing two different systems including different audiological indications in adult population. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive and analytic, cross-sectional, cohort, and retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients >14âyears old, with conductive, mixed, or unilateral sensorineural hearing loss were compared. The variables studied were the following: pure tone audiometry results, air-bone gap, and the percentage of speech/language discrimination using Disyllabic Word Test. The patients were tested preoperative and 12âmonths after surgical procedure. Subsequently, a comparative analysis of the both systems was carried out. RESULTS: With both implants, pure tone audiometry results and the difference in auditory thresholds and between the air-bone gap improved significantly. Speech discrimination increased significantly after implantation too. A significant difference was observed after implantation of both devices. Patients implanted with one of the implants showed better audiological results, but no significant differences were found with the other device. So, it was shown that the type of device and the type of hearing loss have no influence on the audiological results or complications. CONCLUSION: Both implants represent a good choice for audiological rehabilitation in patients with transmissive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, or unilateral sensorineural hearing loss with a high success and low complication rates.
