Cargando…

Stability, Survival, and Tolerability of an Auditory Osseointegrated Implant for Bone Conduction Hearing: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare implant stability, survival, and soft tissue reactions for a novel (test) and previous generation (control) percutaneous auditory osseointegrated implant for bone conduction hearing at long-term follow-up of 5 years. STUDY DESIGN: Single follow-up visit of a previously complete...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: den Besten, Christine A., Stalfors, Joacim, Wigren, Stina, Blechert, Johan Ivarsson, Flynn, Mark, Eeg-Olofsson, Måns, Aggarwal, Rohini, Green, Kevin, Nelissen, Rik C., Mylanus, Emmanuel A. M., Hol, Myrthe K. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27482783
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001111
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To compare implant stability, survival, and soft tissue reactions for a novel (test) and previous generation (control) percutaneous auditory osseointegrated implant for bone conduction hearing at long-term follow-up of 5 years. STUDY DESIGN: Single follow-up visit of a previously completed multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven of the 77 participants of a completed randomized controlled trial on a new auditory osseointegrated implant underwent a single follow-up visit 5 years after implantation, which comprised implant stability measurements and collection of Holgers scores. Additionally, implant survival was recorded for all 77 patients from the original trial. RESULTS: The test implant showed significantly higher implant stability quotient (ISQ) values compared with the control implant throughout the 5-year follow-up. Mean area under the curve of ISQ high from baseline to 5 years was 71.6 (standard deviation [SD] ±2.0) and 66.7 (SD ±3.4) for the test and control implant, respectively (p < 0.0001). For both implants, the mean ISQ value recorded at 5 years was higher compared with implantation (test group +2.03 [SD ±2.55, within group p < 0.0001] and control group +2.25 [SD ±4.95, within group p = 0.12]). No difference was noticed in increase from baseline between groups (p = 0.64). Furthermore, evaluation of soft tissue reactions continued to show superiority of the test implant. At the 5-year follow-up visit, one patient (2.5%) presented with a Holgers grade 2 in the test group, compared with four patients (23.5%) in the control group (p = 0.048); no patient presented with more severe soft tissue reactions. Excluding explantations, the survival rate was 95.8% for the test group and 95.0% for the control group. The corresponding rates including explantations were 93.9 and 90.0%. CONCLUSION: The test implant showed superiority in terms of higher mean ISQ values and less adverse soft tissue reactions, both at the single 5-year follow-up visit and during the complete follow-up. In addition, both implants showed an equally high implant survival.