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 pound standard deviation [SD] 715 pound vs 5590 pound SD 1394 pound, P < .001); however, by 5-years post-implantation this difference was no longer statistically significant (12 pound 453 SD 2159 pound vs 12 pound 575 SD 3854 pound, 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.