Literature DB >> 25218328

Cutaneous complications in osseointegrated implants: comparison between classic and tissue preservation techniques.

Patricia Martínez1, Fernando López2, Justo Ramón Gómez2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND
OBJECTIVES: The standard surgical technique for osseointegrated hearing aids involves removing a large area of subcutaneous tissue down to the periosteum. Recently, the industry has designed a new range of abutment lengths for less invasive surgery with soft tissue preservation. This study compared and evaluated the complications in the standard and the tissue preservation techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective study including 29 adult patients that underwent single-stage osseointegrated hearing aids insertion between February 2009 and February 2013. We performed the standard technique in 14 patients, and the tissue preservation technique in 15. Soft tissue complications were graded according to the Holgers classification.
RESULTS: No patient required removal of implant or revision surgery. Although the Holgers grade was always worse in the standard technique (reaction score of 3 or higher was 28% versus 7% at a month), the complication rate was not statistically significant between the 2 groups at any postoperative time a week (p=0.233), a month (p=0.470) and a year (p=0.401).
CONCLUSION: In our experience the tissue preservation technique, without soft tissue reduction, is the procedure of choice for bone anchored implant surgery. The preservation technique is easier, faster and possible with local anaesthesia and has similar postoperative outcomes.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Otorrinolaringología y Patología Cérvico-Facial. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complicaciones cutáneas; Cutaneous complications; Implante oseointegrado; Osseointegrated hearing aids; Preservación de tejido; Surgical procedures; Tissue preservation; Técnica quirúrgica

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25218328     DOI: 10.1016/j.otorri.2014.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp        ISSN: 0001-6519


  4 in total

1.  Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction.

Authors:  E H H van der Stee; R M Strijbos; S J H Bom; M K S Hol
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: our experience with linear incision and punch techniques.

Authors:  F DI Giustino; P Vannucchi; R Pecci; A Mengucci; R Santimone; B Giannoni
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.124

3.  Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: inside or outside the line of incision?

Authors:  Ruben M Strijbos; Christine A den Besten; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Myrthe K S Hol
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Long-Term Outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery vs. Linear Incision Technique With Soft Tissue Preservation for Installation of Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices.

Authors:  Ruben M Strijbos; Louise V Straatman; Tim G A Calon; Martin L Johansson; Arthur J G de Bruijn; Herbert van den Berge; Mariette Wagenaar; Edwin Eichhorn; Miranda Janssen; Sofia Jonhede; Joost van Tongeren; Marcus Holmberg; Robert Stokroos
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 4.003

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.