Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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

  • J Godbehere (a1), S D Carr (a1), J Moraleda (a1), P Edwards (a1) and J Ray (a1)...
Abstract
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Miss Joanna Godbehere, Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK Fax: 0114 271 1985 E-mail: joanna.godbehere@nhs.net
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1 J Desmet , R Bouzegta , A Hofkens , A De Backer , P Lambrechts , K Wauters 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;269:799805

2 JM Burkey , LP Berenholz , WH Lippy . Latent demand for the bone anchored hearing aid: the Lippy Group experience. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:648–52

3 D Siau , H Nik , JC Hobson , AJ Roper , MP Rothera , KM Green . Bone-anchored hearing aids and chronic pain: a long-term complication and a cause for elective implant removal. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:445–9

5 N Calvo Bodnia , S Foghsgaard , M Nue Moller , P Caye-Thomasen . Long-term results of 185 consecutive osseointegrated hearing device implantations: a comparison among children, adults and elderly. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:301–6

6 K Badran , AK Arya , D Bunstone , N Mackinnon . Long-term complications of bone-anchored hearing aids: a 14-year experience. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:170–6

7 D Gillett , JW Fairley , TS Chandrashaker , A Bean , J Gonzalez . 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;120:537–42

8 M Iseri , KS Orhan , U Tuncer , A Kara , M Durgut , Y Guldiken Transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids versus percutaneous ones: multicenter comparative clinical study. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:849–53

9 R Briggs , A Van Hasselt , M Luntz , M Goycoolea , S Wigren , P Weber Clinical performance of a new magnetic bone conduction implant system: results from a prospective, multicenter, clinical investigation. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:834–41

10 H Powell , A Rolfe , C Birman . A comparative study of audiologic outcomes for two transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1525–31

11 KM Holgers , G Roupe , A Tjellström , LM Bjursten . Clinical, immunological and bacteriological evaluation of adverse reactions to skin-penetrating titanium implants in the head and neck region. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27:17

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology
  • ISSN: 0022-2151
  • EISSN: 1748-5460
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-laryngology-and-otology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 24 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 113 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 19th June 2017 - 19th August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.