Objective: To evaluate the relationship between sociodemographic and clinical factors and follow-up rates and outcomes after Osseointegrated Steady-State Implant (OSIA) implantation. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary care center. Patients: Individuals who underwent OSIA implantation at Northwell Health from September 24, 2020 to October 14, 2024. Intervention: Independent variables included race, language, insurance, income, hearing loss etiology and type, incision type, device model, and history of otologic surgery. Main outcomes: Dependent variables were audiologic and otologic follow-up adherence, time to surgery, time to activation (TTA), device use, surgical complications, and audiometric outcomes. Providers were also surveyed regarding perceived sociodemographic barriers to follow-up. Results: Fifty-nine patients (71 ears) were included. Patients from low-income areas had shorter time to surgery (9.2 vs. 24.2 mo, P = 0.044) but required more replacement parts (66.7% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.024). Medicaid-insured patients had longer TTA (59.6 vs. 43.8 d, P = 0.032). No other socioeconomic differences were significant. Congenital hearing loss correlated with fewer otology follow-ups (1.83 vs. 3.41, P = 0.0022), and conductive loss with more missed appointments (0.40 vs. 0.07, P = 0.026). Horizontal incisions were associated with fewer otologic follow-ups (1.89 vs. 3.74, P = 0.0023) and fewer replacements (13.9% vs. 39.1%, P = 0.033). OSI300 devices were activated sooner (43.3 vs. 56.9 d, P = 0.041) and required fewer otologic and audiologic follow-ups. Among 7 providers, 43% cited socioeconomic status, language, and insurance as barriers to follow-up; 14% cited race. Conclusions: Surgical timing, follow-up, and postoperative outcomes following OSIA implantation were driven primarily by clinical factors; among sociodemographic variables, only insurance type was associated with prolonged TTA. Provider perceptions overestimated the impact of sociodemographic factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sturm et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: