Transcutaneous versus percutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: A quality of life comparison

Abstract

PurposeTo determine whether patients have improved quality of life outcomes with percutaneous bone conduction implant (p-BCI) versus transcutaneous bone conduction implant (t-BCI). Materials & methodsRetrospective chart review of patients who have undergone placement of a BCI in the Ascension St John Providence Health System from 2013 to 2018. Patient satisfaction of t-BCI and p-BCI was measured using a questionnaire that incorporated the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and BAHA, aesthetic, hygiene & use (BAHU) survey. Key outcome variables were separated into 2 categories: (1) evaluation of wound healing and implant-associated complications, and (2) quality of life improvements. ResultsComparative analysis of the 27 p-BCI patients and 10 t-BCI patients showed overall positive benefit with no statistically significant difference on quality of life improvement between the two groups. Total complication rates for p-BCI (48.1 %) vs t-BCI (10 %) was marginally significant (p = 0.056). Rate of revision for p-BCI versus t-BCI was 14.8 % vs 0 %, respectively. ConclusionThis study provides a much-needed comparative insight in patient's experience with these two devices. Understanding which device is preferable in the patient's view will offer helpful information for guiding proper implant selection.