Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2005
Office versus operating room insertion of the bone-anchored hearing aid: a comparative analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Catalano Peter J, Choi Ellen, Cohen Nancy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Bone-anchored Hearing Aid is indicated for patients with unilateral deafness and/or an irreversible conductive hearing loss. The insertion of this device is usually performed in the operating room under intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. We suggest that the placement of the abutment can occur easily and safely in the clinic setting, reducing time and costs for both the patient and the physician.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study.
METHODS: Ten patients requiring 11 devices (1 bilateral) were implanted with the Bone-anchored Hearing Aid device in the outpatient clinic and another 8 patients were implanted in the operating room. All office procedures were done under local anesthesia; operating room procedures used either general anesthesia or intravenous sedation. Follow-up occurred over 12 months. Time required, cost of the procedure, and other logistical concerns between operating room and office-based insertion were evaluated and compared.
RESULTS: When performed in the office, patient fees were reduced by 31%, and patient time investment was reduced 73%. Physician time was reduced by 50%. After office-based insertion, patients were able to return to their normal routine immediately after the procedure, and no chaperone or designated driver was required. No infection or complications occurred in either group.
CONCLUSION: Bone-anchored Hearing Aid insertion in the clinic setting is safe and cost-effective, saving the patient and physician significant time and resources.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study.
METHODS: Ten patients requiring 11 devices (1 bilateral) were implanted with the Bone-anchored Hearing Aid device in the outpatient clinic and another 8 patients were implanted in the operating room. All office procedures were done under local anesthesia; operating room procedures used either general anesthesia or intravenous sedation. Follow-up occurred over 12 months. Time required, cost of the procedure, and other logistical concerns between operating room and office-based insertion were evaluated and compared.
RESULTS: When performed in the office, patient fees were reduced by 31%, and patient time investment was reduced 73%. Physician time was reduced by 50%. After office-based insertion, patients were able to return to their normal routine immediately after the procedure, and no chaperone or designated driver was required. No infection or complications occurred in either group.
CONCLUSION: Bone-anchored Hearing Aid insertion in the clinic setting is safe and cost-effective, saving the patient and physician significant time and resources.