A Comparison of the Audiological Results and Quality of Life for BAHA and OSIA Users

This cross-sectional observational study with prospectively collected outcome data compared speech recognition in noise and patient-reported outcomes in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD) who had previously received either a Baha Connect or an Osia bone-conduction hearing implant. Thirty-five patients were invited, of whom 32 had complete data available for analysis (questionnaires alone: n = 34). Speech-in-noise performance was assessed using the Digits-in-Noise test and expressed as the speech reception threshold at 50% intelligibility (SNR50) in frontal and side presentation conditions. Subjective hearing benefit and hearing-related quality of life were evaluated using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale. No significant differences were observed between Baha Connect and Osia users in aided SNR50 thresholds or in any patient-reported outcome measure. A linear mixed-effects model showed a significant interaction between listening condition and presentation side (p = 0.023), indicating that speech-in-noise benefit depended on the spatial listening configuration rather than on device type. Both groups reported positive subjective outcomes, although spatial hearing remained the lowest-rated domain. Correlations between SNR50 improvement and questionnaire scores were weak and non-significant (Spearman’s ρ < 0.20; p > 0.29), suggesting that objective speech-in-noise improvement and perceived benefit capture partly different aspects of hearing rehabilitation. Baha Connect and Osia provided comparable objective and subjective outcomes in adults with SSD. Therefore, device selection should not be based solely on expected speech-in-noise performance, but should be guided by patient-specific surgical, practical and lifestyle factors.