Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Transcutaneous versus percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: A quality of life comparison.
Robinette, Kyle; Sims, Jake; Pang, Bo; Babu, Seilesh.
Afiliación
  • Robinette K; Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Valley Children's Hospital, CA, Pediatric Otolaryngology, United States of America.
  • Sims J; Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery Residency, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak and Farmington Hills, MI, Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, United States of America. Electronic address: simsjake8@gmail.com.
  • Pang B; Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Hawaii ENT Consultants, United States of America.
  • Babu S; Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Michigan Ear Institute, Otology/Neurotology, Ascension Providence Park Hospital, Associate Professor Wayne State University, United States of America.
Am J Otolaryngol ; 44(2): 103758, 2023.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36610247
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To determine whether patients have improved quality of life outcomes with percutaneous bone conduction implant (p-BCI) versus transcutaneous bone conduction implant (t-BCI). MATERIALS &

METHODS:

Retrospective chart review of patients who have undergone placement of a BCI in the Ascension St John Providence Health System from 2013 to 2018. Patient satisfaction of t-BCI and p-BCI was measured using a questionnaire that incorporated the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and BAHA, aesthetic, hygiene & use (BAHU) survey. Key outcome variables were separated into 2 categories (1) evaluation of wound healing and implant-associated complications, and (2) quality of life improvements.

RESULTS:

Comparative analysis of the 27 p-BCI patients and 10 t-BCI patients showed overall positive benefit with no statistically significant difference on quality of life improvement between the two groups. Total complication rates for p-BCI (48.1 %) vs t-BCI (10 %) was marginally significant (p = 0.056). Rate of revision for p-BCI versus t-BCI was 14.8 % vs 0 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION:

This study provides a much-needed comparative insight in patient's experience with these two devices. Understanding which device is preferable in the patient's view will offer helpful information for guiding proper implant selection.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Audífonos Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Am J Otolaryngol Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Audífonos Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Am J Otolaryngol Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos