Comparison of Outcomes of Surgery Versus Implantable Device for the Treatment of Hearing Loss Associated With Congenital Aural Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectiveTo compare audiometric outcomes, complications, and revisions required for implantable bone-conduction devices (BCDs) versus atresia surgery for the treatment of hearing loss associated with congenital aural atresia.Databases ReviewedPubMed, Scopus, CINAHL.MethodsDatabases were searched for English articles from inception to July 1, 2022, for studies reporting audiometric outcomes or complications for either BCDs or atresia surgery for the treatment of congenital aural atresia. Main outcome measures included pure-tone audiometry, air-bone gap, speech reception threshold, associated complications, and rates of revision for each treatment option.ResultsWe identified 973 abstracts, of which 89 were selected for data extraction and analysis. A total of 2,611 patients were included, 1,901 in the atresia surgery group and 710 in the BCDs group. A meta-analysis of single means was conducted for age and audiometric outcomes, and a meta-analysis of proportions was conducted for complications and revisions. The average short-term improvement in pure-tone audiometry for the BCDs group was 34.4 & PLUSMN; 1.6 dB compared with 22.4 & PLUSMN; 1.5 dB for the atresia surgery group, representing a significant difference (12.0 dB; 95% confidence interval, 11.9-12.2; p < 0.0001). A smaller proportion of complications were reported in the devices group (16.9%) compared with the atresia surgery group (45.7%). In addition, a smaller proportion of cases in the devices group required some degree of revision (17.8%) compared with the atresia surgery group (23.0%).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that implantable BCDs have significantly better audiometric outcomes as well as a lower rate of complications and revisions required compared with atresia surgery.