We have located links that may give you full text access.
Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge 601 versus percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices over a 5-year follow-up period.
Clinical Otolaryngology 2020 October 18
OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices (pBAHDs) are the most commonly used bone conduction implants (BCI). Concerns surround the long-term complications, notably skin-related, in patients with percutaneous abutments. The active transcutaneous BCI Bonebridge system can help avoid some of these pitfalls but is often considered a second line option due to various factors including perceived increased overall costs.
DESIGN: Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge BCI 601 versus pBAHD over a 5-year follow-up period.
SETTING: A specialist hearing implant centre.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (≥16 years) with conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness, who received a Bonebridge or pBAHD implant between 1/7/2013-1/12/2018 with a minimum 12-month follow-up.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the mean costs per implanted patient for both implants at 1, 3 and 5 years post-operative time points. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using objective and patient-reported outcome measures.
RESULTS: The mean total cost per patient of Bonebridge was significantly higher than pBAHD at 1-year post-implantation (£8,512 standard deviation [SD] £715 vs £5,590 SD £1,394, p<0.001); however, by 5-years post-implantation this difference was no longer statistically significant (£12,453 SD £2,159 vs £12,575 SD £3,854, p>0.05). The overall cost convergence was mainly accounted for by the increased long-term complications, revision surgery rates and higher cost of the pBAHD external processor compared to Bonebridge.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term costs of Bonebridge to healthcare providers are comparable to pBAHDs, whilst offering lower complication rates, comparable audiological benefit and patient satisfaction. Bonebridge should be considered as a first line BCI option in appropriate cases.
DESIGN: Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge BCI 601 versus pBAHD over a 5-year follow-up period.
SETTING: A specialist hearing implant centre.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (≥16 years) with conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness, who received a Bonebridge or pBAHD implant between 1/7/2013-1/12/2018 with a minimum 12-month follow-up.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared the mean costs per implanted patient for both implants at 1, 3 and 5 years post-operative time points. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using objective and patient-reported outcome measures.
RESULTS: The mean total cost per patient of Bonebridge was significantly higher than pBAHD at 1-year post-implantation (£8,512 standard deviation [SD] £715 vs £5,590 SD £1,394, p<0.001); however, by 5-years post-implantation this difference was no longer statistically significant (£12,453 SD £2,159 vs £12,575 SD £3,854, p>0.05). The overall cost convergence was mainly accounted for by the increased long-term complications, revision surgery rates and higher cost of the pBAHD external processor compared to Bonebridge.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term costs of Bonebridge to healthcare providers are comparable to pBAHDs, whilst offering lower complication rates, comparable audiological benefit and patient satisfaction. Bonebridge should be considered as a first line BCI option in appropriate cases.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app