Ruben M. Strijbos, Louise V. Straatman, Inge Stegeman, Marcus Holmberg, Martin L. Johansson, Robert J. Stokroos

Health Economic Cost Analysis for Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices: The Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery Versus Linear Incision Technique with Tissue Preservation

  • Neurology (clinical)
  • Sensory Systems
  • Otorhinolaryngology
Save to CiteDrive Show PDF

ObjectivesTo 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 designHealth economic cost analysis.SettingThe analysis was performed in a randomized multicenter controlled trial cohort.PatientsAdult patients eligible for unilateral bone conduction device surgery.InterventionsMIPS versus LITT-P surgery for bone conduction device implantation.Main outcome measuresPerioperative and postoperative costs were identified and compared.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Need a simple solution for managing your BibTeX entries? Explore CiteDrive!

  • Web-based, modern reference management
  • Collaborate and share with fellow researchers
  • Integration with Overleaf
  • Comprehensive BibTeX/BibLaTeX support
  • Save articles and websites directly from your browser
  • Search for new articles from a database of tens of millions of references
Try out CiteDrive

More from our Archive