A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices
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 os...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of laryngology and otology 2017-08, Vol.131 (8), p.667-670 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 670 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 667 |
| container_title | Journal of laryngology and otology |
| container_volume | 131 |
| creator | Godbehere, J Carr, S D Moraleda, J Edwards, P Ray, J |
| description | 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.
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.
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.
The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S002221511700127X |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1911199916</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S002221511700127X</cupid><sourcerecordid>1920239093</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-32c55da305caa615ac4f9b71ff748149a6f19eb7b36b8add8ff0af02172c52213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtLxTAQhYMoen38ADdScOOmmklum2Yp4gsEFyq4K2keEmmTmrSK_npT7_WB4mpg5jtnJjkI7QI-BAzs6AZjQggUAAxjIOx-Bc2Azau8mJd4Fc2mcT7NN9BmjI84QQyTdbRBqpIUULEZejvOpO96EWz0LovDqF4zbz56rZVisN7FTDiVWWcHK9rM-Lb1L_nYJyYOcYKHIFyU4yCc9uOC7nX4bjTe6UQ7NcrJL1P62Uodt9GaEW3UO8u6he7OTm9PLvKr6_PLk-OrXFJGh5wSWRRKUFxIIUoohJwb3jAwJr0U5lyUBrhuWEPLphJKVcZgYTABloTpd-gWOlj49sE_jToOdWej1G27OK8GDgCccygTuv8LffRjcOm6RBFMKMecJgoWlAw-xqBN3QfbifBaA66nYOo_wSTN3tJ5bDqtvhSfSSSALk1F1wSrHvSP3f_avgMqLJnO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1920239093</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Cambridge Journals</source><creator>Godbehere, J ; Carr, S D ; Moraleda, J ; Edwards, P ; Ray, J</creator><creatorcontrib>Godbehere, J ; Carr, S D ; Moraleda, J ; Edwards, P ; Ray, J</creatorcontrib><description>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.
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.
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.
The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-2151</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-5460</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S002221511700127X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28625187</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Bone Conduction ; Bone surgery ; Cochlea ; Cochlear Implantation - adverse effects ; Cochlear Implantation - economics ; Cochlear Implantation - methods ; Cochlear Implants - adverse effects ; Cochlear Implants - economics ; Conduction ; Correction of Hearing Impairment - adverse effects ; Correction of Hearing Impairment - economics ; Correction of Hearing Impairment - instrumentation ; Correction of Hearing Impairment - methods ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Costs ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hearing aids ; Hearing loss ; Humans ; Infections ; Main Articles ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Osseointegration ; Pain ; Patients ; Postoperative Complications - economics ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Rehabilitation ; Retrospective Studies ; Transplants & implants ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of laryngology and otology, 2017-08, Vol.131 (8), p.667-670</ispartof><rights>Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-32c55da305caa615ac4f9b71ff748149a6f19eb7b36b8add8ff0af02172c52213</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-32c55da305caa615ac4f9b71ff748149a6f19eb7b36b8add8ff0af02172c52213</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S002221511700127X/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,27901,27902,55603</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28625187$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Godbehere, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, S D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moraleda, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ray, J</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices</title><title>Journal of laryngology and otology</title><addtitle>J. Laryngol. Otol</addtitle><description>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.
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.
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.
The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bone Conduction</subject><subject>Bone surgery</subject><subject>Cochlea</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation - economics</subject><subject>Cochlear Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cochlear Implants - economics</subject><subject>Conduction</subject><subject>Correction of Hearing Impairment - adverse effects</subject><subject>Correction of Hearing Impairment - economics</subject><subject>Correction of Hearing Impairment - instrumentation</subject><subject>Correction of Hearing Impairment - methods</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hearing aids</subject><subject>Hearing loss</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Main Articles</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Osseointegration</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - economics</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0022-2151</issn><issn>1748-5460</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtLxTAQhYMoen38ADdScOOmmklum2Yp4gsEFyq4K2keEmmTmrSK_npT7_WB4mpg5jtnJjkI7QI-BAzs6AZjQggUAAxjIOx-Bc2Azau8mJd4Fc2mcT7NN9BmjI84QQyTdbRBqpIUULEZejvOpO96EWz0LovDqF4zbz56rZVisN7FTDiVWWcHK9rM-Lb1L_nYJyYOcYKHIFyU4yCc9uOC7nX4bjTe6UQ7NcrJL1P62Uodt9GaEW3UO8u6he7OTm9PLvKr6_PLk-OrXFJGh5wSWRRKUFxIIUoohJwb3jAwJr0U5lyUBrhuWEPLphJKVcZgYTABloTpd-gWOlj49sE_jToOdWej1G27OK8GDgCccygTuv8LffRjcOm6RBFMKMecJgoWlAw-xqBN3QfbifBaA66nYOo_wSTN3tJ5bDqtvhSfSSSALk1F1wSrHvSP3f_avgMqLJnO</recordid><startdate>201708</startdate><enddate>201708</enddate><creator>Godbehere, J</creator><creator>Carr, S D</creator><creator>Moraleda, J</creator><creator>Edwards, P</creator><creator>Ray, J</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201708</creationdate><title>A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices</title><author>Godbehere, J ; Carr, S D ; Moraleda, J ; Edwards, P ; Ray, J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-32c55da305caa615ac4f9b71ff748149a6f19eb7b36b8add8ff0af02172c52213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bone Conduction</topic><topic>Bone surgery</topic><topic>Cochlea</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation - economics</topic><topic>Cochlear Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cochlear Implants - economics</topic><topic>Conduction</topic><topic>Correction of Hearing Impairment - adverse effects</topic><topic>Correction of Hearing Impairment - economics</topic><topic>Correction of Hearing Impairment - instrumentation</topic><topic>Correction of Hearing Impairment - methods</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hearing aids</topic><topic>Hearing loss</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Main Articles</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Osseointegration</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - economics</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Godbehere, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, S D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moraleda, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ray, J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of laryngology and otology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Godbehere, J</au><au>Carr, S D</au><au>Moraleda, J</au><au>Edwards, P</au><au>Ray, J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices</atitle><jtitle>Journal of laryngology and otology</jtitle><addtitle>J. Laryngol. Otol</addtitle><date>2017-08</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>131</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>667</spage><epage>670</epage><pages>667-670</pages><issn>0022-2151</issn><eissn>1748-5460</eissn><abstract>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.
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.
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.
The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>28625187</pmid><doi>10.1017/S002221511700127X</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-2151 |
| ispartof | Journal of laryngology and otology, 2017-08, Vol.131 (8), p.667-670 |
| issn | 0022-2151 1748-5460 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1911199916 |
| source | MEDLINE; Cambridge Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Bone Conduction Bone surgery Cochlea Cochlear Implantation - adverse effects Cochlear Implantation - economics Cochlear Implantation - methods Cochlear Implants - adverse effects Cochlear Implants - economics Conduction Correction of Hearing Impairment - adverse effects Correction of Hearing Impairment - economics Correction of Hearing Impairment - instrumentation Correction of Hearing Impairment - methods Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs Female Follow-Up Studies Hearing aids Hearing loss Humans Infections Main Articles Male Middle Aged Osseointegration Pain Patients Postoperative Complications - economics Postoperative Complications - etiology Rehabilitation Retrospective Studies Transplants & implants Treatment Outcome |
| title | A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T08%3A04%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20study%20of%20complications%20and%20initial%20follow-up%20costs%20of%20transcutaneous%20and%20percutaneous%20bone%20conduction%20devices&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20laryngology%20and%20otology&rft.au=Godbehere,%20J&rft.date=2017-08&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=667&rft.epage=670&rft.pages=667-670&rft.issn=0022-2151&rft.eissn=1748-5460&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S002221511700127X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1920239093%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1920239093&rft_id=info:pmid/28625187&rft_cupid=10_1017_S002221511700127X&rfr_iscdi=true |