ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024
Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Sentio Bone Conduction Hearing Implant System in the Australian Healthcare Setting.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Bone-Anchored Hearing Instruments in Chronic Otitis Media: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBone 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
methodsRetrospective data from 77 patients implanted in a tertiary referral centre with a pBCD (n = 34), tBCD (n = 43; passive (t
resultsAfter 5 years, the total post-implantation costs of the pBCD vs t
conclusionTotal 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.