Retrospective cohort study reveals increased risk of hearing device explantation following early and recurrent wound complications in adults, highlighting the need for closer monitoring.
Objective: The objective was to examine the time-adjusted risk of explantation of bone-anchored hearing devices following wound complications after primary implantation. Study design: Retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care neurotology center. Patients: Adults 18 years or older with primary bone-anchored hearing implants from 2003 to 2025, with available audiogram and medical history. Excluded were patients with incomplete data, prior implantations, or immediate postoperative loss to follow-up. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the incidence of device explantation following early (<60 days) or recurrent (>3 episodes) wound complications. The Cox proportional hazards framework with time-dependent modeling was applied for analysis. Results: A total of 1090 surgical ears (666 female, 61.1%; 8 bilateral) underwent primary device implantation, with 127 (11.7%) undergoing explantation; median follow-up was 4.40 years (IQR: 1.66-7.98 y). Patients who underwent explantation were more likely to experience early (HR: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.53-3.45; P <0.001) and frequent (HR: 5.29; 95% CI: 3.62-7.72; P <0.001) wound complications. The cumulative incidence of device explantation at 10 years among patients with frequent wound complications was 60.6% (95% CI: 45.5%-71.5%), compared with 15.6% (95% CI: 11.9%-19.9%) among patients without such complications. After adjustment, frequent wound complications remained significantly associated with the device removal (aHR: 4.60; 95% CI: 2.82-7.51; P <0.001). Conclusions: Recurrent wound complications are associated with nearly a fivefold increase in hazard for device explantation, supporting the need for risk stratification, monitoring, and earlier intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gathman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: