ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes of bone-anchored hearing implant surgery using the MONO procedure. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, multinational, single-arm, prospective trial with a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Seven European university hospitals from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands. PATIENTS: Fifty-one adult patients requiring surgical intervention for bone conduction hearing. INTERVENTION: Bone-anchored hearing implant surgery using the MONO procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint assessed implant usability 3 months after surgery. Implant status, soft tissue reactions, pain and numbness, postoperative events, and sound processor usage were assessed at all follow-up visits. Hearing-related quality of life was evaluated using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). RESULTS: At 3 months, 94.2% of the implant/abutment complexes provided reliable anchorage for sound processor usage. No severe intraoperative complications occurred. Sixty-nine percent of surgeries were performed under local anesthesia, with surgery lasting 10 minutes on average. Four implants were lost due to trauma (n = 2), spontaneous loss of osseointegration (n = 1), or incomplete insertion (n = 1). Adverse soft tissue reactions occurred in 2.6% of visits, with a maximum Holgers grade of 3 (n = 1) and grade 2 (n = 5) across patients. Hearing-related quality of life at 3 months improved in 96% of patients. CONCLUSION: The MONO procedure provides a safe and efficient surgical technique for inserting bone-anchored hearing implants with few and minor intra- and postoperative complications.
Subject(s)
Bone Conduction , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Quality of Life , Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Adult , Aged , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Treatment Outcome , Hearing Aids , Prosthesis Implantation/methods , Hearing Loss/surgery , Aged, 80 and over , Hearing Loss, Conductive/surgeryABSTRACT
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.