OBJECTIVES: With the number of different hearing implants available for individuals with a conductive/mixed hearing loss (CMHL), it is becoming more and more important to demonstrate user needs and benefit, in particular for aiding in decision making. The aim of this study was to systematically review the subjective outcomes of different hearing implants for individuals with CMHL. METHODS: Several databases were searched using a comprehensive search strategy to identify studies published assessing subjective outcomes with unilateral middle ear implantations (MEI), percutaneous bone conduction implants (pBCI) and transcutaneous BCIs (tBCI). The search included papers in any language. Non-systematic reviews, case reports, letters, editorials; animal, in-vitro and laboratory studies and clinical studies with less than 5 cases were excluded. RESULTS: Out of 670 citations, 22 percutaneous and 7 transcutaneous BCI, plus 10 MEI publications were identified (total n=1106). As many as 20 different questionnaires were applied. All devices lead to an improvement in HR-QOL when compared to the unaided condition. Using HR-QOL measures, outcomes with different pBCIs were in favour of the Ponto than the BAHA which was reflected in patient preferences. Comparison of pBCI with tBCI and MEI generally showed a similar distribution. Outcomes were relatively better with MEI than pBCI on one questionnaire. Outcomes of tBCIs and MEIs were also similar on HR-QOL measures, but were slightly in favour of the latter on a general-health QOL measure (G-QOL). The common HUI G-QOL measure was only available for pBCI and MEI users with any type of hearing loss, and results were similarly distributed. CONCLUSIONS: : There are many QOL measures for assessing hearing loss, however not many are sensitive at picking up differences between hearing implants. The studies identified in the literature, even though limited in number and quality, suggest health-related measures to be more sensitive than general health measures.