Cargando…

Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the three-year clinical and audiological outcomes of soft-tissue preservation compared to soft-tissue reduction in linear incision surgery for percutaneous implant for bone conduction (BC) devices. METHODS: Twenty-five patients (25 implants) were enrolled in a prospective coh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kruyt, Ivo J., Kok, Herman, Bosman, Arjan, Nelissen, Rik Chrétien, Mylanus, Emmanuel Antonia Maria, Hol, Myrthe Karianne Sofie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6380444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30742596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002105
_version_ 1783396302104559616
author Kruyt, Ivo J.
Kok, Herman
Bosman, Arjan
Nelissen, Rik Chrétien
Mylanus, Emmanuel Antonia Maria
Hol, Myrthe Karianne Sofie
author_facet Kruyt, Ivo J.
Kok, Herman
Bosman, Arjan
Nelissen, Rik Chrétien
Mylanus, Emmanuel Antonia Maria
Hol, Myrthe Karianne Sofie
author_sort Kruyt, Ivo J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the three-year clinical and audiological outcomes of soft-tissue preservation compared to soft-tissue reduction in linear incision surgery for percutaneous implant for bone conduction (BC) devices. METHODS: Twenty-five patients (25 implants) were enrolled in a prospective cohort for implant surgery with linear incision and tissue preservation. The control group consisted of 25 patients (25 implants) from a previous randomized controlled trial in which a linear incision with soft-tissue reduction was applied. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 7 and 21 days (fitting of sound processor); 12 weeks; 6 months; and at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation. Main outcome measures were skin sensibility, soft-tissue status, Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ), skin height, implant survival, revision surgery, scar assessment, and hearing thresholds (BC in-situ between 250 Hz and 8 kHz with BC device on testband and abutment, and BC thresholds at 250Hz–4 kHz with a B71 bone conductor). RESULTS: Tissue preservation resulted in superior sensibility (mean percentage correct responses 99.7% [SD 1.7] vs 92.0% [SD 9.2], p = 0.0001). No spontaneous implant loss occurred in either group. The abutment was removed in two tests and in one control patient. Two control patients needed skin revision surgery. Although not statistically significant, more adverse soft-tissue reactions (Holgers ≥2) were observed in the test-group (n = 9 [36%] vs n = 3 [12%], p = 0.095). ISQ increased significantly more in the test group compared to the control group (7.64 [SD 4.05] vs 4.29 [SD 3.93]). Skin thickening, scar assessment, and hearing outcomes were comparable. CONCLUSION: Tissue preservation demonstrated superior skin sensibility compared to tissue reduction while other clinical outcomes were comparably excellent.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6380444
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63804442019-03-12 Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique Kruyt, Ivo J. Kok, Herman Bosman, Arjan Nelissen, Rik Chrétien Mylanus, Emmanuel Antonia Maria Hol, Myrthe Karianne Sofie Otol Neurotol Middle Ear and Mastoid Disease OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the three-year clinical and audiological outcomes of soft-tissue preservation compared to soft-tissue reduction in linear incision surgery for percutaneous implant for bone conduction (BC) devices. METHODS: Twenty-five patients (25 implants) were enrolled in a prospective cohort for implant surgery with linear incision and tissue preservation. The control group consisted of 25 patients (25 implants) from a previous randomized controlled trial in which a linear incision with soft-tissue reduction was applied. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 7 and 21 days (fitting of sound processor); 12 weeks; 6 months; and at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation. Main outcome measures were skin sensibility, soft-tissue status, Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ), skin height, implant survival, revision surgery, scar assessment, and hearing thresholds (BC in-situ between 250 Hz and 8 kHz with BC device on testband and abutment, and BC thresholds at 250Hz–4 kHz with a B71 bone conductor). RESULTS: Tissue preservation resulted in superior sensibility (mean percentage correct responses 99.7% [SD 1.7] vs 92.0% [SD 9.2], p = 0.0001). No spontaneous implant loss occurred in either group. The abutment was removed in two tests and in one control patient. Two control patients needed skin revision surgery. Although not statistically significant, more adverse soft-tissue reactions (Holgers ≥2) were observed in the test-group (n = 9 [36%] vs n = 3 [12%], p = 0.095). ISQ increased significantly more in the test group compared to the control group (7.64 [SD 4.05] vs 4.29 [SD 3.93]). Skin thickening, scar assessment, and hearing outcomes were comparable. CONCLUSION: Tissue preservation demonstrated superior skin sensibility compared to tissue reduction while other clinical outcomes were comparably excellent. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019-03 2019-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6380444/ /pubmed/30742596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002105 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of Otology & Neurotology, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
spellingShingle Middle Ear and Mastoid Disease
Kruyt, Ivo J.
Kok, Herman
Bosman, Arjan
Nelissen, Rik Chrétien
Mylanus, Emmanuel Antonia Maria
Hol, Myrthe Karianne Sofie
Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique
title Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique
title_full Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique
title_fullStr Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique
title_full_unstemmed Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique
title_short Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique
title_sort three-year clinical and audiological outcomes of percutaneous implants for bone conduction devices: comparison between tissue preservation technique and tissue reduction technique
topic Middle Ear and Mastoid Disease
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6380444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30742596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002105
work_keys_str_mv AT kruytivoj threeyearclinicalandaudiologicaloutcomesofpercutaneousimplantsforboneconductiondevicescomparisonbetweentissuepreservationtechniqueandtissuereductiontechnique
AT kokherman threeyearclinicalandaudiologicaloutcomesofpercutaneousimplantsforboneconductiondevicescomparisonbetweentissuepreservationtechniqueandtissuereductiontechnique
AT bosmanarjan threeyearclinicalandaudiologicaloutcomesofpercutaneousimplantsforboneconductiondevicescomparisonbetweentissuepreservationtechniqueandtissuereductiontechnique
AT nelissenrikchretien threeyearclinicalandaudiologicaloutcomesofpercutaneousimplantsforboneconductiondevicescomparisonbetweentissuepreservationtechniqueandtissuereductiontechnique
AT mylanusemmanuelantoniamaria threeyearclinicalandaudiologicaloutcomesofpercutaneousimplantsforboneconductiondevicescomparisonbetweentissuepreservationtechniqueandtissuereductiontechnique
AT holmyrthekariannesofie threeyearclinicalandaudiologicaloutcomesofpercutaneousimplantsforboneconductiondevicescomparisonbetweentissuepreservationtechniqueandtissuereductiontechnique