Safety profiles of bone-conduction hearing implants revisited: A meta-analytic comparison adjusted for follow-up time.

Marco Caversaccio, Wilhelm Wimmer, Annegret Hoch, Thomas Dejaco, Burkard Schwab
{"title":"Safety profiles of bone-conduction hearing implants revisited: A meta-analytic comparison adjusted for follow-up time.","authors":"Marco Caversaccio, Wilhelm Wimmer, Annegret Hoch, Thomas Dejaco, Burkard Schwab","doi":"10.1007/s00405-025-09502-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To estimate incidence rates of adverse events associated with bone-conduction hearing implants from primary literature and to compare rates among different technological designs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review and meta-regression was conducted to estimate incidence rates of minor and major complications and their consequences (i.e., revision surgery, explantation, re-implantation and becoming a non-user) while testing for effects of device design, age group, mean follow-up time and study type. These four designs of bone-conduction systems were included: 1) active transcutaneous with electromagnetic transducer (aBCIem), 2) active transcutaneous with piezoelectric transducer (aBCIpz), 3) passive transcutaneous (tBAHA), and 4) passive percutaneous (pBAHA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final dataset included 170 articles reporting on 6451 implantations and 1847 minor and 668 major events. Mean follow-up time was a significant predictor of incidence rates (p < 0.001), with lower rates reported in studies with longer follow-up times. After adjusting to the median follow-up time, the pooled incidence rate of minor complications was significantly lower in aBCIem (p < 0.05) compared to other designs. For both major events and revision surgery, pooled incidence rates were significantly higher in pBAHA compared to aBCIem (p < 0.001) and tBAHA (p < 0.001), but not compared to aBCIpz (Major: p = 0.197; Revision: p = 0.248). Becoming a non-user occurred significantly more frequently in tBAHA compared to other designs (p < 0.005). No statistically significant differences were found in rates of explantation and explantation with re-implantation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When comparing across multiple studies, adverse event rates should be adjusted for different lengths of follow-up. Synthesizing published evidence without considering follow-up time may lead to false conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":520614,"journal":{"name":"European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-025-09502-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate incidence rates of adverse events associated with bone-conduction hearing implants from primary literature and to compare rates among different technological designs.

Methods: A systematic literature review and meta-regression was conducted to estimate incidence rates of minor and major complications and their consequences (i.e., revision surgery, explantation, re-implantation and becoming a non-user) while testing for effects of device design, age group, mean follow-up time and study type. These four designs of bone-conduction systems were included: 1) active transcutaneous with electromagnetic transducer (aBCIem), 2) active transcutaneous with piezoelectric transducer (aBCIpz), 3) passive transcutaneous (tBAHA), and 4) passive percutaneous (pBAHA).

Results: The final dataset included 170 articles reporting on 6451 implantations and 1847 minor and 668 major events. Mean follow-up time was a significant predictor of incidence rates (p < 0.001), with lower rates reported in studies with longer follow-up times. After adjusting to the median follow-up time, the pooled incidence rate of minor complications was significantly lower in aBCIem (p < 0.05) compared to other designs. For both major events and revision surgery, pooled incidence rates were significantly higher in pBAHA compared to aBCIem (p < 0.001) and tBAHA (p < 0.001), but not compared to aBCIpz (Major: p = 0.197; Revision: p = 0.248). Becoming a non-user occurred significantly more frequently in tBAHA compared to other designs (p < 0.005). No statistically significant differences were found in rates of explantation and explantation with re-implantation.

Conclusion: When comparing across multiple studies, adverse event rates should be adjusted for different lengths of follow-up. Synthesizing published evidence without considering follow-up time may lead to false conclusions.

重新审视骨传导听力植入物的安全性:调整随访时间的荟萃分析比较。
目的:从原始文献中估计与骨传导听力植入相关的不良事件发生率,并比较不同技术设计的发生率。方法:通过系统的文献回顾和meta回归,估计主要和次要并发症的发生率及其后果(即翻修手术、外植体、再植入和成为非使用者),同时检验器械设计、年龄组、平均随访时间和研究类型的影响。这四种骨传导系统设计包括:1)主动经皮电磁换能器(aBCIem), 2)主动经皮压电换能器(aBCIpz), 3)被动经皮(tBAHA)和4)被动经皮(pBAHA)。结果:最终数据集包括170篇报道6451例种植体,1847例次要事件和668例主要事件。平均随访时间是发病率的显著预测因子(p)。结论:在多个研究之间进行比较时,不良事件发生率应根据不同的随访时间进行调整。综合已发表的证据而不考虑随访时间可能导致错误的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信