Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge 601 versus percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices over a 5-year follow-up period.

OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices (pBAHDs) are the most commonly used bone conduction implants (BCI). Concerns surround the long-term complications, notably skin-related, in patients with percutaneous abutments. The active transcutaneous BCI Bonebridge system can help avoid some of these pitfalls but is often considered a second-line option due to various factors including perceived increased overall costs.

DESIGN

Longitudinal economic analysis of Bonebridge BCI 601 versus pBAHD over a 5-year follow-up period.

SETTING

A specialist hearing implant centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients (≥16 years) with conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness, who received a Bonebridge or pBAHD implant between 1/7/2013 and 1/12/2018 with a minimum 12-month follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared the mean costs per implanted patient for both implants at 1, 3 and 5 years postoperative time points. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using objective and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

The mean total cost per patient of Bonebridge was significantly higher than pBAHD at 1-year post-implantation (£8512 standard deviation [SD] £715 vs £5590 SD £1394, P < .001); however, by 5-years post-implantation this difference was no longer statistically significant (£12 453 SD £2159 vs £12 575 SD £3854, P > .05). The overall cost convergence was mainly accounted for by the increased long-term complications, revision surgery rates and higher cost of the pBAHD external processor compared to Bonebridge.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term costs of Bonebridge to healthcare providers are comparable to pBAHDs, whilst offering lower complication rates, comparable audiological benefit and patient satisfaction. Bonebridge should be considered as a first-line BCI option in appropriate cases.