Ruben M Strijbos1,2, Louise V Straatman1,2, Tim G A Calon1,2, Martin L Johansson3,4, Arthur J G de Bruijn5, Herbert van den Berge6, Mariette Wagenaar6, Edwin Eichhorn6, Miranda Janssen7,8, Sofia Jonhede4, Joost van Tongeren7, Marcus Holmberg4, Robert Stokroos1,2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 2. University Medical Centre Utrecht Brain Centre, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3. Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Oticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, Netherlands. 6. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands. 7. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands. 8. Department of Methodology and Statistics, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Abstract
Objective: Comparing the surgical outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique with the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation (LITT-P) for bone conduction devices after a follow-up of 22 months. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, there was the inclusion of 64 adult patients eligible for unilateral surgery. There was 1:1 randomization to the MIPS (test) or the LITT-P (control) group. The primary outcome was an (adverse) soft tissue reaction. Secondary outcomes were pain, loss of sensibility, soft tissue height/overgrowth, skin sagging, implant loss, Implant Stability Quotient measurements, cosmetic scores, and quality of life questionnaires. Results:Sixty-three subjects were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. No differences were found in the presence of (adverse) soft tissue reactions during complete follow-up. Also, there were no differences in pain, wound dehiscence, skin level, soft tissue overgrowth, and overall quality of life. Loss of sensibility (until 3-month post-surgery), cosmetic scores, and skin sagging outcomes were better in the MIPS group. The Implant Stability Quotient was higher after the LITT-P for different abutment lengths at various points of follow-up. Implant extrusion was nonsignificantly higher after the MIPS (15.2%) compared with LITT-P (3.3%). Conclusion: The long-term results show favorable outcomes for both techniques. The MIPS is a promising technique with some benefits over the LITT-P. Concerns regarding nonsignificantly higher implant loss may be overcome with future developments and research. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02438618.
RCT Entities:
Objective: Comparing the surgical outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique with the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation (LITT-P) for bone conduction devices after a follow-up of 22 months. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, there was the inclusion of 64 adult patients eligible for unilateral surgery. There was 1:1 randomization to the MIPS (test) or the LITT-P (control) group. The primary outcome was an (adverse) soft tissue reaction. Secondary outcomes were pain, loss of sensibility, soft tissue height/overgrowth, skin sagging, implant loss, Implant Stability Quotient measurements, cosmetic scores, and quality of life questionnaires. Results: Sixty-three subjects were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. No differences were found in the presence of (adverse) soft tissue reactions during complete follow-up. Also, there were no differences in pain, wound dehiscence, skin level, soft tissue overgrowth, and overall quality of life. Loss of sensibility (until 3-month post-surgery), cosmetic scores, and skin sagging outcomes were better in the MIPS group. The Implant Stability Quotient was higher after the LITT-P for different abutment lengths at various points of follow-up. Implant extrusion was nonsignificantly higher after the MIPS (15.2%) compared with LITT-P (3.3%). Conclusion: The long-term results show favorable outcomes for both techniques. The MIPS is a promising technique with some benefits over the LITT-P. Concerns regarding nonsignificantly higher implant loss may be overcome with future developments and research. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02438618.
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
Authors: Ad F M Snik; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; David W Proops; John F Wolfaardt; William E Hodgetts; Thomas Somers; John K Niparko; Jack J Wazen; Olivier Sterkers; Cor W R J Cremers; Anders Tjellström Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl Date: 2005-12
Authors: Tim G A Calon; Marc van Hoof; Herbert van den Berge; Arthur J G de Bruijn; Joost van Tongeren; Janny R Hof; Jan Wouter Brunings; Sofia Jonhede; Lucien J C Anteunis; Miranda Janssen; Manuela A Joore; Marcus Holmberg; Martin L Johansson; Robert J Stokroos Journal: Trials Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: M van Hoof; S Wigren; J Ivarsson Blechert; M A Joore; D J M Mateijsen; S J H Bom; J Stalfors; Måns Eeg-Olofsson; O Deguine; A J M van der Rijt; M C Flynn; J Marco Algarra; R J Stokroos Journal: Front Surg Date: 2020-03-05
Authors: Martin L Johansson; Tim G A Calon; Omar Omar; Furqan A Shah; Margarita Trobos; Peter Thomsen; Robert J Stokroos; Anders Palmquist Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 5.293