Cargando…

Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mean surgical time, incidence of soft tissue reactions, implant survival and intraoperative complications in both minimally invasive ponto surgery (MIPS) and the linear incision with tissue preservation technique (LT). METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out on 48 bon...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Stefano, Sabrina, Mochi, Paolo, Murri, Alessandra, Cuda, Domenico
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Pacini Editore Srl 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8569658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34734584
http://dx.doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N1048
_version_ 1784594682687258624
author De Stefano, Sabrina
Mochi, Paolo
Murri, Alessandra
Cuda, Domenico
author_facet De Stefano, Sabrina
Mochi, Paolo
Murri, Alessandra
Cuda, Domenico
author_sort De Stefano, Sabrina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mean surgical time, incidence of soft tissue reactions, implant survival and intraoperative complications in both minimally invasive ponto surgery (MIPS) and the linear incision with tissue preservation technique (LT). METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out on 48 bone anchored hearing system (BAHS) patients between 2014 and 2019: 13 patients had undergone LT and formed one group, while 35 patients had undergone MIPS and formed the second group. Mean surgical time, intraoperative complications, implant loss and skin reaction were assessed at each post-operative examination. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The difference in the mean surgical time of 15 mins for MIPS and 36 mins for LT was statistically significant. No intraoperative complications were reported and implant survival was 100% in both groups. The incidence of adverse skin reactions was 7.7% for the LT group and 0% for the MIPS group at first follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical mean time is shorter for MIPS, making this procedure more suitable for local anaesthesia and more cost effective. Moreover, both LT and MIPS demonstrate good surgical outcomes in terms of skin reactions according to Holgers score and equally excellent implant survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8569658
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Pacini Editore Srl
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85696582021-11-18 Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery De Stefano, Sabrina Mochi, Paolo Murri, Alessandra Cuda, Domenico Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Otology OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mean surgical time, incidence of soft tissue reactions, implant survival and intraoperative complications in both minimally invasive ponto surgery (MIPS) and the linear incision with tissue preservation technique (LT). METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out on 48 bone anchored hearing system (BAHS) patients between 2014 and 2019: 13 patients had undergone LT and formed one group, while 35 patients had undergone MIPS and formed the second group. Mean surgical time, intraoperative complications, implant loss and skin reaction were assessed at each post-operative examination. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The difference in the mean surgical time of 15 mins for MIPS and 36 mins for LT was statistically significant. No intraoperative complications were reported and implant survival was 100% in both groups. The incidence of adverse skin reactions was 7.7% for the LT group and 0% for the MIPS group at first follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical mean time is shorter for MIPS, making this procedure more suitable for local anaesthesia and more cost effective. Moreover, both LT and MIPS demonstrate good surgical outcomes in terms of skin reactions according to Holgers score and equally excellent implant survival. Pacini Editore Srl 2021-09-14 2021-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8569658/ /pubmed/34734584 http://dx.doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N1048 Text en Società Italiana di Otorinolaringoiatria e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale, Rome, Italy https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the CC-BY-NC-ND (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International) license. The article can be used by giving appropriate credit and mentioning the license, but only for non-commercial purposes and only in the original version. For further information: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en
spellingShingle Otology
De Stefano, Sabrina
Mochi, Paolo
Murri, Alessandra
Cuda, Domenico
Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery
title Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery
title_full Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery
title_fullStr Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery
title_short Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery
title_sort comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery
topic Otology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8569658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34734584
http://dx.doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N1048
work_keys_str_mv AT destefanosabrina comparisonbetweenlinearincisionandpunchtechniquesforboneanchoredhearingaidsurgery
AT mochipaolo comparisonbetweenlinearincisionandpunchtechniquesforboneanchoredhearingaidsurgery
AT murrialessandra comparisonbetweenlinearincisionandpunchtechniquesforboneanchoredhearingaidsurgery
AT cudadomenico comparisonbetweenlinearincisionandpunchtechniquesforboneanchoredhearingaidsurgery