TY - JOUR
T1 - Health Economic Cost Analysis for Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices
T2 - The Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery Versus Linear Incision Technique with Tissue Preservation
AU - Strijbos, Ruben M.
AU - Straatman, Louise V.
AU - Stegeman, Inge
AU - Holmberg, Marcus
AU - Johansson, Martin L.
AU - Stokroos, Robert J.
N1 - Funding Information: Conflict of interest: M.L.J. and M.H. are paid employees of Oticon Medical. M.L.J. is supported by the research group of Professor P. Thomsen (University of Gothenburg) and the resources provided by The Swedish Research Council (2018-02891), the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF agreement (ALFGBG-725641), the IngaBritt and Arne Lundberg Foundation, the Adlerbertska Foundation, the Hjalmar Svensson Foundation, and the Area of Advance Materials of Chalmers/GU Biomaterials within the Strategic Research Area initiative launched by the Swedish government. Funding Information: Financial disclosure: This study is supported by a research grant of Oticon Medical AB (Askim, Sweden). Publisher Copyright: © Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/8/1
Y1 - 2023/8/1
N2 - Objectives To identify differences in mean cost per patient between the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) and the linear incision technique with tissue preservation (LITT-P). Study design Health economic cost analysis. Setting The analysis was performed in a randomized multicenter controlled trial cohort. Patients Adult patients eligible for unilateral bone conduction device surgery. Interventions MIPS versus LITT-P surgery for bone conduction device implantation. Main outcome measures Perioperative and postoperative costs were identified and compared. Results The difference in mean cost per patient between both techniques was €77.83 in favor of the MIPS after 22 months follow-up. The mean costs per patient were lower in the MIPS cohort for surgery (€145.68), outpatient visits (€24.27), systemic antibiotic therapy with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (€0.30) or clindamycin (€0.40), abutment change (€0.36), and abutment removal (€0.18). The mean costs per patient were higher for implant and abutment set (€18.00), topical treatment with hydrocortison/oxytetracycline/polymyxine B (€0.43), systemic therapy with azithromycin (€0.09) or erythromycin (€1.15), local revision surgery (€1.45), elective explantation (€1.82), and implant extrusion (€70.42). Additional analysis of scenarios in which all patients were operated under general or local anesthesia or with recalculation when using current implant survival rates showed that differences in mean cost per patient were also in favor of the MIPS. Conclusion The difference between the MIPS and the LITT-P in mean cost per patient was €77.83 in favor of the MIPS after 22 months of follow-up. The MIPS is an economically responsible technique and could be promising for the future.
AB - Objectives To identify differences in mean cost per patient between the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) and the linear incision technique with tissue preservation (LITT-P). Study design Health economic cost analysis. Setting The analysis was performed in a randomized multicenter controlled trial cohort. Patients Adult patients eligible for unilateral bone conduction device surgery. Interventions MIPS versus LITT-P surgery for bone conduction device implantation. Main outcome measures Perioperative and postoperative costs were identified and compared. Results The difference in mean cost per patient between both techniques was €77.83 in favor of the MIPS after 22 months follow-up. The mean costs per patient were lower in the MIPS cohort for surgery (€145.68), outpatient visits (€24.27), systemic antibiotic therapy with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (€0.30) or clindamycin (€0.40), abutment change (€0.36), and abutment removal (€0.18). The mean costs per patient were higher for implant and abutment set (€18.00), topical treatment with hydrocortison/oxytetracycline/polymyxine B (€0.43), systemic therapy with azithromycin (€0.09) or erythromycin (€1.15), local revision surgery (€1.45), elective explantation (€1.82), and implant extrusion (€70.42). Additional analysis of scenarios in which all patients were operated under general or local anesthesia or with recalculation when using current implant survival rates showed that differences in mean cost per patient were also in favor of the MIPS. Conclusion The difference between the MIPS and the LITT-P in mean cost per patient was €77.83 in favor of the MIPS after 22 months of follow-up. The MIPS is an economically responsible technique and could be promising for the future.
KW - Bone conduction devices
KW - Cost analysis
KW - Health economics
KW - Linear incision technique
KW - MIPS
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164842891&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003939
DO - https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003939
M3 - Article
C2 - 37400140
SN - 1531-7129
VL - 44
SP - 709
EP - 717
JO - Otology and Neurotology
JF - Otology and Neurotology
IS - 7
ER -