Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices

Introduction: Bone conduction devices (BCD) are effective for hearing rehabilitation in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. Transcutaneous bone conduction devices (tBCD) seem to lead to fewer soft tissue complications than percutaneous BCDs (pBCD) but have other drawbacks such as MRI incompatibility and higher costs. Previous cost analyses have shown a cost advantage of tBCDs. The purpose of this study is to compare long-term post-implantations costs between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs. Materials and methods: Retrospective data from 77 patients implanted in a tertiary referral centre with a pBCD (n = 34), tBCD (n = 43; passive (tpasBCD; n = 34) and active (tactBCD; n = 9) and a reference group who underwent cochlear implantation (CI; n = 34), were included in a clinical cost analysis. Post-implantation costs were determined as the sum of consultation (medical and audiological) and additional (all post-operative care) costs. Median (cumulative) costs per device incurred for the different cohorts were compared at 1, 3 and 5 years after implantation. Results: After 5 years, the total post-implantation costs of the pBCD vs tpasBCD were not significantly different (€1550.7 [IQR 1174.6–2797.4] vs €2266.9 [IQR 1314.1–3535.3], p = 0.185), nor was there a significant difference between pBCD vs tactBCD (€1550.7 [1174.6–2797.4] vs €1428.8 [1277.3–1760.4], p = 0.550). Additional post-implantation costs were significantly highest in the tpasBCD cohort at all moments of follow-up. Conclusion: Total costs related to post-operative rehabilitation and treatments are comparable between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs up to 5 years after implantation. Complications related to passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices appeared significantly more expensive after implantation due to more frequent explantations.</p

Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices

Introduction: Bone conduction devices (BCD) are effective for hearing rehabilitation in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. Transcutaneous bone conduction devices (tBCD) seem to lead to fewer soft tissue complications than percutaneous BCDs (pBCD) but have other drawbacks such as MRI incompatibility and higher costs. Previous cost analyses have shown a cost advantage of tBCDs. The purpose of this study is to compare long-term post-implantations costs between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs. Materials and methods: Retrospective data from 77 patients implanted in a tertiary referral centre with a pBCD (n = 34), tBCD (n = 43; passive (tpasBCD; n = 34) and active (tactBCD; n = 9) and a reference group who underwent cochlear implantation (CI; n = 34), were included in a clinical cost analysis. Post-implantation costs were determined as the sum of consultation (medical and audiological) and additional (all post-operative care) costs. Median (cumulative) costs per device incurred for the different cohorts were compared at 1, 3 and 5 years after implantation. Results: After 5 years, the total post-implantation costs of the pBCD vs tpasBCD were not significantly different (€1550.7 [IQR 1174.6–2797.4] vs €2266.9 [IQR 1314.1–3535.3], p = 0.185), nor was there a significant difference between pBCD vs tactBCD (€1550.7 [1174.6–2797.4] vs €1428.8 [1277.3–1760.4], p = 0.550). Additional post-implantation costs were significantly highest in the tpasBCD cohort at all moments of follow-up. Conclusion: Total costs related to post-operative rehabilitation and treatments are comparable between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs up to 5 years after implantation. Complications related to passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices appeared significantly more expensive after implantation due to more frequent explantations.</p

Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices

Introduction: Bone conduction devices (BCD) are effective for hearing rehabilitation in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. Transcutaneous bone conduction devices (tBCD) seem to lead to fewer soft tissue complications than percutaneous BCDs (pBCD) but have other drawbacks such as MRI incompatibility and higher costs. Previous cost analyses have shown a cost advantage of tBCDs. The purpose of this study is to compare long-term post-implantations costs between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs. Materials and methods: Retrospective data from 77 patients implanted in a tertiary referral centre with a pBCD (n = 34), tBCD (n = 43; passive (tpasBCD; n = 34) and active (tactBCD; n = 9) and a reference group who underwent cochlear implantation (CI; n = 34), were included in a clinical cost analysis. Post-implantation costs were determined as the sum of consultation (medical and audiological) and additional (all post-operative care) costs. Median (cumulative) costs per device incurred for the different cohorts were compared at 1, 3 and 5 years after implantation. Results: After 5 years, the total post-implantation costs of the pBCD vs tpasBCD were not significantly different (€1550.7 [IQR 1174.6–2797.4] vs €2266.9 [IQR 1314.1–3535.3], p = 0.185), nor was there a significant difference between pBCD vs tactBCD (€1550.7 [1174.6–2797.4] vs €1428.8 [1277.3–1760.4], p = 0.550). Additional post-implantation costs were significantly highest in the tpasBCD cohort at all moments of follow-up. Conclusion: Total costs related to post-operative rehabilitation and treatments are comparable between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs up to 5 years after implantation. Complications related to passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices appeared significantly more expensive after implantation due to more frequent explantations.</p

Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices

Introduction: Bone conduction devices (BCD) are effective for hearing rehabilitation in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. Transcutaneous bone conduction devices (tBCD) seem to lead to fewer soft tissue complications than percutaneous BCDs (pBCD) but have other drawbacks such as MRI incompatibility and higher costs. Previous cost analyses have shown a cost advantage of tBCDs. The purpose of this study is to compare long-term post-implantations costs between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs. Materials and methods: Retrospective data from 77 patients implanted in a tertiary referral centre with a pBCD (n = 34), tBCD (n = 43; passive (tpasBCD; n = 34) and active (tactBCD; n = 9) and a reference group who underwent cochlear implantation (CI; n = 34), were included in a clinical cost analysis. Post-implantation costs were determined as the sum of consultation (medical and audiological) and additional (all post-operative care) costs. Median (cumulative) costs per device incurred for the different cohorts were compared at 1, 3 and 5 years after implantation. Results: After 5 years, the total post-implantation costs of the pBCD vs tpasBCD were not significantly different (€1550.7 [IQR 1174.6–2797.4] vs €2266.9 [IQR 1314.1–3535.3], p = 0.185), nor was there a significant difference between pBCD vs tactBCD (€1550.7 [1174.6–2797.4] vs €1428.8 [1277.3–1760.4], p = 0.550). Additional post-implantation costs were significantly highest in the tpasBCD cohort at all moments of follow-up. Conclusion: Total costs related to post-operative rehabilitation and treatments are comparable between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs up to 5 years after implantation. Complications related to passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices appeared significantly more expensive after implantation due to more frequent explantations.</p

A Clinical Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery With a Modified Drill System for Inserting Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants

To compare 6-months outcomes of the modified minimally invasive Ponto surgery (m-MIPS) to both the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation (LIT-TP), and original MIPS (o-MIPS) for inserting bone-anchored hearing implants (BAHIs). STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory pilot study with one test group and two historical control groups. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: In the test group, 24 patients (25 implants) were prospectively included. Each control group comprised 25 patients (25 implants) who participated in previously conducted clinical trials. INTERVENTIONS: The test group received a BAHI using m-MIPS. The two control groups underwent surgery using the LIT-TP and o-MIPS, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Implant survival, implant stability, and surgery-related variables were compared between the test and control groups. Soft tissue status, skin sensibility, and subjective numbness were compared between m-MIPS and LIT-TP only. RESULTS: Implant survival was comparable between m-MIPS and LIT-TP, whereas implant stability measurements were slightly lower for m-MIPS. M-MIPS resulted in comparable adverse skin reactions and skin sensibility, significantly reduced surgical time and slightly improved subjective numbness, compared with LIT-TP. Between m-MIPS and o-MIPS, no statistically significant differences in implant survival, implant stability and surgical time were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A trend toward lower implant loss rates after m-MIPS was observed, when compared with o-MIPS. M-MIPS seems to be a good alternative to LIT-TP for inserting BAHIs, since most clinical outcomes were either comparable or slightly better for m-MIPS. Upon deciding on which technique to use, larger studies on implant survival should be performed. Furthermore, other aspects such as costs, training aspects and surgical experience should be evaluated

Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices

Introduction: Bone conduction devices (BCD) are effective for hearing rehabilitation in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness. Transcutaneous bone conduction devices (tBCD) seem to lead to fewer soft tissue complications than percutaneous BCDs (pBCD) but have other drawbacks such as MRI incompatibility and higher costs. Previous cost analyses have shown a cost advantage of tBCDs. The purpose of this study is to compare long-term post-implantations costs between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs. Materials and methods: Retrospective data from 77 patients implanted in a tertiary referral centre with a pBCD (n = 34), tBCD (n = 43; passive (tpasBCD; n = 34) and active (tactBCD; n = 9) and a reference group who underwent cochlear implantation (CI; n = 34), were included in a clinical cost analysis. Post-implantation costs were determined as the sum of consultation (medical and audiological) and additional (all post-operative care) costs. Median (cumulative) costs per device incurred for the different cohorts were compared at 1, 3 and 5 years after implantation. Results: After 5 years, the total post-implantation costs of the pBCD vs tpasBCD were not significantly different (€1550.7 [IQR 1174.6–2797.4] vs €2266.9 [IQR 1314.1–3535.3], p = 0.185), nor was there a significant difference between pBCD vs tactBCD (€1550.7 [1174.6–2797.4] vs €1428.8 [1277.3–1760.4], p = 0.550). Additional post-implantation costs were significantly highest in the tpasBCD cohort at all moments of follow-up. Conclusion: Total costs related to post-operative rehabilitation and treatments are comparable between percutaneous and transcutaneous BCDs up to 5 years after implantation. Complications related to passive transcutaneous bone conduction devices appeared significantly more expensive after implantation due to more frequent explantations.</p

Новые книги

IMPORTANCE The cost of bilateral cochlear implantation (BCI) is usually not reimbursed by insurance companies because of a lack of well-designed studies reporting the benefits of a second cochlear implant. OBJECTIVE To determine the benefits of simultaneous BCI compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) in adults with postlingual deafness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The study took place in 5 Dutch tertiary referral centers: the University Medical Centers of Utrecht, Maastricht, Groningen, Leiden, and Nijmegen. Forty patients eligible for cochlear implantation met the study criteria and were included from January 12, 2010, through November 2, 2012. The main inclusion criteria were postlingual onset of hearing loss, age of 18 to 70 years, duration of hearing loss of less than 20 years, and a marginal hearing aid benefit. Two participants withdrew from the study before implantation. Nineteen participants were randomized to undergo UCI and 19 to undergo BCI. INTERVENTIONS The BCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgery. The UCI group received 1 cochlear implant. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (speech in noise, both presented from straight ahead). Secondary outcomes were consonant-vowel-consonant words in silence, speech-intelligibility test with spatially separated sources (speech in noise from different directions), sound localization, and quality of hearing questionnaires. Before any data were collected, the hypothesis was that the BCI group would perform better on the objective and subjective tests that concerned speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing. RESULTS Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Fifteen patients in the BCI group used hearing aids before implantation compared with 19 in the UCI group. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between the groups' baseline characteristics. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups on the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (9.1 dB, UCI group; 8.2 dB, BCI group; P = .39) or the consonant-vowel-consonant test (median percentage correct score 85.0% in the UCI group and 86.8% in the BCI group; P = .21). The BCI group performed significantly better than the UCI group when noise came from different directions (median speech reception threshold in noise, 14.4 dB, BCI group; 5.6 dB, BCI group; P <.001). The BCI group was better able to localize sounds (median correct score of 50.0% at 60 degrees, UCI group; 96.7%, BCI group; P CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial demonstrates a significant benefit of simultaneous BCI above UCI in daily listening situations for adults with postlingual deafness

Variations of endonasal anatomy: relevance for the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach

Contains fulltext : 87525.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: The endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) to the pituitary is performed by ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgeons in collaboration with neurosurgeons but also by neurosurgeons alone even though neurosurgeons have not been trained in rhinological surgery. PURPOSE: To register the frequency of endonasal anatomical variations and to evaluate whether these variations hinder the progress of EETA and require extra rhinological surgical skills. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 185 consecutive patients receiving an EETA through a binostril approach was performed. All anatomical endonasal variations were noted and the relevance for the progress of surgery evaluated. RESULTS: In 48% of patients, anatomical variations were recognized, the majority of which were spinae septi and septum deviations. In 5% of patients, the planned binostril approach had to be converted into a mononostril approach; whereas in 18% of patients with an anatomical variation, a correction had to be performed. There was no difference between the ENT surgeon and the neurosurgeon performing the approach. Complications related to the endonasal phase of the surgery occurred in 3.8%. Fluoroscopy or electromagnetic navigation has been used during 6.5% of the surgeries. CONCLUSION: Although endonasal anatomical variations are frequent, they do not pose a relevant obstacle for EETA.1 juni 201