A Multinational Cost-Consequence Analysis of a Bone Conduction Hearing Implant System-A Randomized Trial of a Conventional vs. a Less Invasive Treatment With New Abutment Technology.

Background: It is hypothesized that, for patients with hearing loss, surgically placing an implant/abutment combination whilst leaving the subcutaneous tissues intact will improve cosmetic and clinical results, increase quality of life (QoL) for the patient, and reduce medical costs. Here, incremental costs and consequences associated with soft tissue preservation surgery with a hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated abutment (test) were compared with the conventional approach, soft tissue reduction surgery with an all-titanium abutment (control). Methods: A cost-consequence analysis was performed based on data gathered over a period of 3 years in an open randomized (1:1) controlled trial (RCT) running in four European countries (The Netherlands, Spain, France, and Sweden). Subjects with conductive or mixed hearing loss or single-sided sensorineural deafness were included. Results: During the first year, in the Netherlands (NL), France (FR), and Spain (ES) a net cost saving was achieved in favor of the test intervention because of a lower cost associated with surgery time and adverse event treatments [NL €86 (CI -50.33; 219.20), FR €134 (CI -3.63; 261.30), ES €178 (CI 34.12; 97.48)]. In Sweden (SE), the HA-coated abutment was more expensive than the conventional abutment, which neutralized the cost savings and led to a negative cost (SE €-29 CI -160.27; 97.48) of the new treatment modality. After 3 years, the mean cost saving reduced to €17 (CI -191.80; 213.30) in the Netherlands, in Spain to €84.50 (CI -117.90; 289.50), and in France to €80 (CI -99.40; 248.50). The mean additional cost in Sweden increased to €-116 (CI -326.90; 68.10). The consequences in terms of the subjective audiological benefit and Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were comparable between treatments. A trend was identified for favorable results in the test group for some consequences and statistical significance is achieved for the cosmetic outcome as assessed by the clinician. Conclusions: From this multinational cost-consequence analysis it can be discerned that health care systems can achieve a cost saving during the first year that regresses after 3 years, by implementing soft tissue preservation surgery with a HA-coated abutment in comparison to the conventional treatment. The cosmetic results are better. (sponsored by Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB; Clinical and health economic evaluation with a new Baha® abutment design combined with a minimally invasive surgical technique, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01796236).

Audiological and clinical outcomes of a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: Six-month results from a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the hearing performance of patients with conductive and mild mixed hearing loss and single-sided sensorineural deafness provided with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant (the Baha Attract System) with unaided hearing as well as aided with a sound processor on a softband. Furthermore, to evaluate safety and subjective benefit before and after implantation of the test device. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four adult patients in five participating centres were enrolled in this prospective study. Baseline data were collected during a pre-operative visit, and after a softband trial, all patients were implanted unilaterally. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 10 days, 4, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Free-field hearing thresholds pure-tone average (PTA4 in dB HL; mean threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 Hz; primary outcome measure). Individual free-field hearing thresholds, speech recognition in quiet and in noise, soft tissue status during follow-up and subjective benefit as measured with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and Health Utilities Index (HUI) questionnaires. RESULTS: Implantation of the Baha Attract System resulted in favourable audiological outcomes compared to unaided conditions. On the primary outcome parameter, a statistically significant improvement was observed compared to unaided hearing for the patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss (mean PTA4 difference -20.8 dB HL, SD 9.8; P < 0.0001) and for the patients with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD) (mean PTA4 difference -21.6 dB HL, SD 12.2; P < 0.0001). During all audiology tests, the non-test ear was blocked. Statistically significant improvements were also recorded in speech tests in quiet and noise compared to unaided hearing for the conductive/mixed hearing loss group and for speech in quiet in the SSD group. Compared to the pre-operative measurement with softband, no significant differences were recorded in the PTA4 free-field hearing threshold or the other audiological outcomes in either of the groups (P > 0.05). Soft tissue-related issues observed during follow-up included numbness, pain/discomfort at the implant site and to a lesser extent pressure-related skin complications. A declining trend was noted in the rate of these complications during follow-up. Approximately 20% of patients reported some degree of numbness and 38% (slight) pain/discomfort at final follow-up of 6 months. Good results on the subjective benefit questionnaires were observed, with statistically significant improvements on APHAB and SSQ questionnaires, and on the hearing attribute of HUI3. CONCLUSIONS: The Baha Attract System provided a significant improvement in hearing performance and subjective benefit compared to the pre-operative unaided condition (with the non-test ear blocked). Hearing performance of the Baha Attract was similar to a test situation with the same sound processor on a softband. A proportion of the patients reported numbness and pain/discomfort at the implant site during follow-up, especially during the first post-operative weeks. Based on the results of the current multicentre study, the Baha Attract can be considered as a treatment option for patients with the aforementioned hearing losses. Especially in the SSD patients, a careful selection procedure is warranted. Therefore, a pre-operative trial should be part of the decision-making process before fitting a patient with the Baha Attract System.

Application and Interpretation of Resonance Frequency Analysis in Auditory Osseointegrated Implants: A Review of Literature and Establishment of Practical Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To establish standardization of implant stability measurements in auditory osseointegrated implants by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) through reviewing the currently published literature. METHODS: Studies reporting on RFA in auditory osseointegrated implants were identified, and the outcomes and the way these were reported were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies reporting RFA outcomes of auditory osseointegrated implants were identified and analyzed, which demonstrated variations in methodology and reporting of data. The different reporting standards made a meta-analysis impossible. Heterogeneity and limitations were found in reporting of the types of implants, abutments, and SmartPegs used; study population sizes; follow-up duration; and, reporting of the implant stability quotient (ISQ). CONCLUSION: RFA is an interesting outcome of clinical studies on auditory osseointegrated implant research and might have potential as a clinically relevant tool for assessing implant stability. Because of the heterogeneous data that have been reported to date, the following guidelines for standardization of application and reporting were established. The implant and abutment type and length, and the type of SmartPeg should always be stated. Absolute stand-alone ISQ values should not be interpreted individually. ISQ values are at this moment most meaningful as a trend in the individual patient or in a population over time. No conclusions should be based on individual ISQ values. Standardized time points for RFA in research should be determined prospectively, with surgery as a baseline. After abutment replacement, individual ISQ trends from baseline cannot be interpreted anymore if the abutments differ in length.

Long-term stability, survival, and tolerability of a novel osseointegrated implant for bone conduction hearing: 3-year data from a multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 3-year stability, survival, and tolerability of 2 osseointegrated implants for bone conduction hearing: a wide 4.5-mm-diameter moderately roughened implant with a rounded 6-mm abutment (test) and a 3.75-mm diameter as-machined implant with a conically shaped 5.5-mm abutment (control). STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized, prospective, controlled, multicenter clinical study, 77 adult patients were included. Test and control implants were randomly assigned in proportions of 2:1. The implants were loaded with the sound processor from 6 weeks postimplantation. Follow-up after surgery was conducted at 10 days; at 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks; and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after surgery. At every visit, implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were recorded by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and skin reactions were evaluated according to Holgers' classification. RESULTS: Statistically significantly higher mean ISQ values were recorded for the test implant compared with the control implant at each evaluation time point. Between 2 and 3 years after surgery, ISQ values decreased but remained above baseline values. Implant survival was high for both implants: 96.2% of the test implants and 100% of the control implants survived these 3 years. Statistically significantly improved soft tissue outcomes were observed in the test implant group. CONCLUSION: This extensive long-term clinical investigation demonstrated that the test implant is more stable in terms of ISQ-values and provides high tolerability for the soft tissue. The results show that implant loading at 6 weeks is safe.

Stability, survival, and tolerability of a novel baha implant system: six-month data from a multicenter clinical investigation.

OBJECTIVE: Determination of the difference in implant stability between a novel Baha implant system (test) and the previous-generation implant system (control). METHODS: In an open, randomized, prospective multicenter clinical investigation, 77 adult patients with Baha implants were included. Test and control implants were randomly assigned in proportions of 2:1. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were recorded using resonance frequency analysis at the time of implantation and at 10 days, at 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks, and at 6 months after surgery. Skin reactions were evaluated according to the Holgers classification. Sound processor fitting was performed from 6 weeks after implantation. RESULTS: Significantly higher mean ISQ values, measured between 0 and 6 months, were obtained for test compared to control implants (70.4 versus 65.4, p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences were obtained for the study population as a whole and for the subgroup of patients loaded at 6 ± 1 weeks after implant surgery (63.6% of patients). Up to 12 weeks, Holgers rates were comparable, whereas at 6 months, more skin reactions (Grades 1 and 2) were observed in the control implant group. No reduction in mean ISQ values was observed after implant loading. CONCLUSION: The test implant showed higher mean ISQ values at the time of placement and over time. The level of osseointegration reached with the implants in adults as early as 6 weeks after implantation was sufficient to support the sound processor. The test implant system is expected to provide additional benefits related to the improvement of the degree of osseointegration, especially for patients with thin or compromised bone.