Sound Localization in Single-Sided Deafness; Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial on the Comparison Between Cochlear Implantation, Bone Conduction Devices, and Contralateral Routing of Signals Hearing Aids.

At two years, 18.3% of data were missing or participants were lost to follow-up. Participants were analysed by the treatment they actually received or chose, not by the initial randomised group. After trying BCD and CROS, participants chose their treatment, so dissatisfaction or preference may have shaped the groups. The no-treatment group had higher baseline localization errors and lower percent-correct scores than the other groups, even though baseline differences were not significant. Cochlear implant users did not reach normal-hearing localization accuracy. This paper did not report speech perception, tinnitus, or quality of life outcomes. The cochlear implant group also received activation, setting adjustments, and speech-language therapy, so the effect of any single component cannot be separated. Some participants stopped using their device during follow-up.

Cochlear Ltd. partly funded the study with an unrestricted research grant, and the study budget paid for cochlear implantation and related care not covered by Dutch insurers. The authors declared no conflicts, and the paper states the funders had no role in design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, publication, or manuscript preparation.

Do not assume the implant alone caused the benefit. The cochlear implant group also received activation, setting adjustments, and speech-language therapy, and the paper does not separate their contributions.