Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:42:37.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2017

J Godbehere ,
S D Carr ,
J Moraleda ,
P Edwards  and
J Ray
J Godbehere*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
S D Carr
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
J Moraleda
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
P Edwards
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
J Ray
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Miss Joanna Godbehere, Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK Fax: 0114 271 1985 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device can be associated with more soft tissue complications when compared to the magnetic transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device. This study aimed to determine whether fewer soft tissue complications may result in the transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device being a lower cost option in hearing rehabilitation.

Methods:

This retrospective case note review included adult patients who underwent implantation with the transcutaneous Cochlear Attract (n = 22) or percutaneous Cochlear DermaLock (n = 25) bone-anchored hearing aids between September 2013 and December 2014. The number of post-operative clinic appointments, complications and treatments undertaken, and calculated cost average, were compared between the two groups.

Results:

Although the transcutaneous device was slightly more expensive than the percutaneous device, the percutaneous device was associated with a greater number of soft tissue complications and, as a result, the percutaneous device had significantly higher follow-up costs in the first six months following surgery.

Conclusion:

The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device.

Keywords

Bone ConductionHearing AidsCostsCorrection Of Hearing Impairment
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 667 - 670
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Desmet, J, Bouzegta, R, Hofkens, A, De Backer, A, Lambrechts, P, Wauters, K et al. Clinical need for a BAHA trial in patients with single-sided sensorineural deafness. Analysis of a BAHA database of 196 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;269:799–805 Google Scholar
2 Burkey, JM, Berenholz, LP, Lippy, WH. Latent demand for the bone anchored hearing aid: the Lippy Group experience. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:648–52Google Scholar
3 Siau, D, Nik, H, Hobson, JC, Roper, AJ, Rothera, MP, Green, KM. Bone-anchored hearing aids and chronic pain: a long-term complication and a cause for elective implant removal. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:445–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Siegert, R. Partially implantable bone conduction hearing aids without a percutaneous abutment (Otomag): technique and preliminary results. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;71:41–6Google Scholar
5 Calvo Bodnia, N, Foghsgaard, S, Nue Moller, M, Caye-Thomasen, P. Long-term results of 185 consecutive osseointegrated hearing device implantations: a comparison among children, adults and elderly. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:301–6Google Scholar
6 Badran, K, Arya, AK, Bunstone, D, Mackinnon, N. Long-term complications of bone-anchored hearing aids: a 14-year experience. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:170–6Google Scholar
7 Gillett, D, Fairley, JW, Chandrashaker, TS, Bean, A, Gonzalez, J. Bone-anchored hearing aids: results of the first eight years of a programme in a district general hospital, assessed by the Glasgow benefit inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:537–42Google Scholar
8 Iseri, M, Orhan, KS, Tuncer, U, Kara, A, Durgut, M, Guldiken, Y et al. Transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids versus percutaneous ones: multicenter comparative clinical study. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:849–53Google Scholar
9 Briggs, R, Van Hasselt, A, Luntz, M, Goycoolea, M, Wigren, S, Weber, P et al. Clinical performance of a new magnetic bone conduction implant system: results from a prospective, multicenter, clinical investigation. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:834–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Powell, H, Rolfe, A, Birman, C. A comparative study of audiologic outcomes for two transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1525–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Holgers, KM, Roupe, G, Tjellström, A, Bjursten, LM. Clinical, immunological and bacteriological evaluation of adverse reactions to skin-penetrating titanium implants in the head and neck region. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27:1–7 Google Scholar