Rik C Nelissen1, Stina Wigren, Mark C Flynn, Gert J Meijer, Emmanuel A M Mylanus, Myrthe K S Hol. 1. *Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands †Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB, Mölnlycke, Sweden ‡Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish standardization of implant stability measurements in auditory osseointegrated implants by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) through reviewing the currently published literature. METHODS: Studies reporting on RFA in auditory osseointegrated implants were identified, and the outcomes and the way these were reported were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies reporting RFA outcomes of auditory osseointegrated implants were identified and analyzed, which demonstrated variations in methodology and reporting of data. The different reporting standards made a meta-analysis impossible. Heterogeneity and limitations were found in reporting of the types of implants, abutments, and SmartPegs used; study population sizes; follow-up duration; and, reporting of the implant stability quotient (ISQ). CONCLUSION: RFA is an interesting outcome of clinical studies on auditory osseointegrated implant research and might have potential as a clinically relevant tool for assessing implant stability. Because of the heterogeneous data that have been reported to date, the following guidelines for standardization of application and reporting were established. The implant and abutment type and length, and the type of SmartPeg should always be stated. Absolute stand-alone ISQ values should not be interpreted individually. ISQ values are at this moment most meaningful as a trend in the individual patient or in a population over time. No conclusions should be based on individual ISQ values. Standardized time points for RFA in research should be determined prospectively, with surgery as a baseline. After abutment replacement, individual ISQ trends from baseline cannot be interpreted anymore if the abutments differ in length.
OBJECTIVE: To establish standardization of implant stability measurements in auditory osseointegrated implants by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) through reviewing the currently published literature. METHODS: Studies reporting on RFA in auditory osseointegrated implants were identified, and the outcomes and the way these were reported were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies reporting RFA outcomes of auditory osseointegrated implants were identified and analyzed, which demonstrated variations in methodology and reporting of data. The different reporting standards made a meta-analysis impossible. Heterogeneity and limitations were found in reporting of the types of implants, abutments, and SmartPegs used; study population sizes; follow-up duration; and, reporting of the implant stability quotient (ISQ). CONCLUSION: RFA is an interesting outcome of clinical studies on auditory osseointegrated implant research and might have potential as a clinically relevant tool for assessing implant stability. Because of the heterogeneous data that have been reported to date, the following guidelines for standardization of application and reporting were established. The implant and abutment type and length, and the type of SmartPeg should always be stated. Absolute stand-alone ISQ values should not be interpreted individually. ISQ values are at this moment most meaningful as a trend in the individual patient or in a population over time. No conclusions should be based on individual ISQ values. Standardized time points for RFA in research should be determined prospectively, with surgery as a baseline. After abutment replacement, individual ISQ trends from baseline cannot be interpreted anymore if the abutments differ in length.
Authors: Jan Boucek; Jan Vokral; Libor Cerny; Martin Chovanec; Jiří Skrivan; Eduard Zverina; Jan Betka; Michal Zabrodsky Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Tim George Ate Calon; Martin Lars Johansson; Elske Larissa van den Burg; Anna Maria Louisa Janssen; Marc van Hoof; Robert Jan Stokroos Journal: Front Surg Date: 2017-07-24
Authors: Christine A den Besten; Joacim Stalfors; Stina Wigren; Johan Ivarsson Blechert; Mark Flynn; Måns Eeg-Olofsson; Rohini Aggarwal; Kevin Green; Rik C Nelissen; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Myrthe K S Hol Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.311
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
Authors: Max Sallis Osborne; Anne Child-Hymas; Marcus Holmberg; Peter Thomsen; Martin L Johansson; Ann-Louise McDermott Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Tim G A Calon; Martin L Johansson; Arthur J G de Bruijn; Herbert van den Berge; Mariet Wagenaar; Edwin Eichhorn; Miranda M L Janssen; Janny R Hof; Jan-Wouter Brunings; Manuela A Joore; Sofia Jonhede; Joost van Tongeren; Marcus Holmberg; Robert-Jan Stokroos Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.311