OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of implant location and skin thickness on the frequency and degree of adverse skin reactions around the abutment. DESIGN: Retrospective multivariate analysis of implant position related to skin thickness and clinical variables. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Random sample of 248 patients with bone-anchored hearing aids. INTERVENTIONS: Bone-anchored hearing aid implant placement by means of the linear incision technique. MEAN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type and number of skin reactions and implant loss. RESULTS: The mean (SD) distance from the external auditory ear canal to implant was 48.8 (8.0) mm (range, 29-84 mm). The mean skin thickness was 5.5 (1.9) mm. Severe skin reactions (Holgers classification, 2-4) were seen in 46 of the 248 patients (18.5%). Implant loss occurred in 4 patients (1.6%). Three implants were lost owing to failed osseointegration (1.3%), and another implant was removed because of deterioration of cochlear function (0.9%). No implant was lost as a result of infection. CONCLUSION: Implant location and skin thickness were not correlated with implant loss or the frequency or degree of adverse skin reactions around the abutment.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of implant location and skin thickness on the frequency and degree of adverse skin reactions around the abutment. DESIGN: Retrospective multivariate analysis of implant position related to skin thickness and clinical variables. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Random sample of 248 patients with bone-anchored hearing aids. INTERVENTIONS: Bone-anchored hearing aid implant placement by means of the linear incision technique. MEAN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type and number of skin reactions and implant loss. RESULTS: The mean (SD) distance from the external auditory ear canal to implant was 48.8 (8.0) mm (range, 29-84 mm). The mean skin thickness was 5.5 (1.9) mm. Severe skin reactions (Holgers classification, 2-4) were seen in 46 of the 248 patients (18.5%). Implant loss occurred in 4 patients (1.6%). Three implants were lost owing to failed osseointegration (1.3%), and another implant was removed because of deterioration of cochlear function (0.9%). No implant was lost as a result of infection. CONCLUSION: Implant location and skin thickness were not correlated with implant loss or the frequency or degree of adverse skin reactions around the abutment.
Authors: Jameson K Mattingly; Nathaniel T Greene; Herman A Jenkins; Daniel J Tollin; James R Easter; Stephen P Cass Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Suhana Abdul Rahim; Bee-See Goh; Safinaz Zainor; Roslenda Abdul Rahman; Asma Abdullah Journal: Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-09-12
Authors: Daniel Peñaranda; Juan Manuel Garcia; Maria Leonor Aparicio; Felipe Montes; Clemencia Barón; Roberto C Jiménez; Augusto Peñaranda Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-04-25