Introduction:
In 2017, the first adhesive bone conduction device (aBCD) was introduced. Since then, clinical studies have extensively compared adhesive bone conduction devices to conventional bone conduction systems on softbands. The aim of this study is to evaluate the audiological and subjective outcomes of patients suffering from conductive hearing loss (CHL) who used an aBCD for a trial period, comparing outcomes with their existing passive transcutaneous bone conduction implants (ptBCI), which was either the Sophono Alpha or the BAHA Attract.

Material and methods:
This prospective study included 14 congenital aural atresia patients between 7 and 16 years old. Participants had been ptBCI users for at least 2 years and had bone conduction thresholds ≤ 25 dB HL. The aBCD trial was for 1 week. Average pure tone thresholds (PTA4) and word recognition scores (WRS) with disyllabic words at 65 dB SPL in quiet and in noise were measured for each device. Subjective outcomes were recorded using the aBCD mini questionnaire and the SSQ questionnaire for hearing satisfaction, which were filled in by parents.

Results:
We analyzed 16 ears. The mean sound field PTA4 was 52 dB HL unaided, 27 dB HL ptBCI-aided and 29 dB HL aBCD-aided. Mean WRS in quiet was 96% with ptBCI and 95% with BCD. In noise (+5 dB SNR) the mean WRS was 70% with ptBCI and 77% with aBCD. A questionnaire revealed easy handling and good acceptance of the aBCD.

Conclusions:
In this group of patients, comparable audiological and subjective satisfaction results were achieved with a non-implantable adhesive bone conduction device. Despite differences in handling, the adhesive BCD presents itself as an alternative to transcutaneous bone conduction implants.