Qianyu Xiao1, Fanghua Gong2, Ning Wang3, Weihua Hu2. 1. Department of Nursing, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, the First-Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University, 61 Jiefang West Road, Changsha, Hunan, China. zhangp_123@126.com. 2. Department of Nursing, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, the First-Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University, 61 Jiefang West Road, Changsha, Hunan, China. 3. Department of ENT & HN Surgery, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, the First-Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several authors have reported their experience with the punch technique as compared to open surgical methods for bone-anchored hearing implants (BAHI). However, no study has attempted to aggregate current evidence. We aimed to compare post-operative skin complications and operating time between punch and open surgical techniques of BAHI via a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, Ovoid, and CENTRAL were screened up to 15th February 2020 to include studies comparing punch and open surgical technique for BAHI. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. Punch technique was compared with dermatome and linear incision techniques with and without soft tissue reduction. There was no difference in normal-to-moderate skin reaction between the punch and open surgical techniques (OR: 0.86 95% CI 0.23, 3.28 I2 = 0%). The incidence of adverse skin reactions were also not different between the two groups. Meta-regression for different follow-up periods did not demonstrate any statistically significant results. Our results also indicated that punch technique requires less operating time, however, the inter-study heterogeneity in the analysis was very high. Similar results were seen on sub-group analysis based on the type of open surgical technique. CONCLUSION: There may be no difference in skin tolerance between the punch technique and open surgical techniques. Operating time may be significantly reduced with the punch technique. Strong conclusions cannot be drawn owing to a limited number of studies. Further large-scale randomized trials are required.
PURPOSE: Several authors have reported their experience with the punch technique as compared to open surgical methods for bone-anchored hearing implants (BAHI). However, no study has attempted to aggregate current evidence. We aimed to compare post-operative skin complications and operating time between punch and open surgical techniques of BAHI via a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, Ovoid, and CENTRAL were screened up to 15th February 2020 to include studies comparing punch and open surgical technique for BAHI. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. Punch technique was compared with dermatome and linear incision techniques with and without soft tissue reduction. There was no difference in normal-to-moderate skin reaction between the punch and open surgical techniques (OR: 0.86 95% CI 0.23, 3.28 I2 = 0%). The incidence of adverse skin reactions were also not different between the two groups. Meta-regression for different follow-up periods did not demonstrate any statistically significant results. Our results also indicated that punch technique requires less operating time, however, the inter-study heterogeneity in the analysis was very high. Similar results were seen on sub-group analysis based on the type of open surgical technique. CONCLUSION: There may be no difference in skin tolerance between the punch technique and open surgical techniques. Operating time may be significantly reduced with the punch technique. Strong conclusions cannot be drawn owing to a limited number of studies. Further large-scale randomized trials are required.
Authors: Maarten J F de Wolf; Myrthe K S Hol; Patrick L M Huygen; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Cor W R J Cremers Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Catharina A J Dun; Hubert T Faber; Maarten J F de Wolf; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Cor W R J Cremers; Myrthe K S Hol Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.311