+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Bone-anchored Hearing Implant Surgery: Randomized Trial of Dermatome Versus Linear Incision Without Soft Tissue Reduction--Clinical Measures



Bone-anchored Hearing Implant Surgery: Randomized Trial of Dermatome Versus Linear Incision Without Soft Tissue Reduction--Clinical Measures



Otology and Neurotology 36(5): 805-811



Assessment of differences in soft tissue healing and long-term issues between two techniques for bone-anchored hearing implant (BAHI) surgery. Single-center, randomized, nonblinded study using balanced randomization (1:1). Tertiary referral center in the Central Denmark Region. Forty-seven adults with normal skin quality. Operation with a BAHI system with randomization to 1) dermatome technique with soft tissue removal and 2) linear incision with no soft tissue reduction. Holgers' score, pain, and sensibility loss assessed at 0, 3, 7, 10, 14, and 21 days and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Implant loss. Forty-nine patients were randomized (linear incision, n = 25; dermatome, n = 24). Forty-seven patients were analyzed (linear incision, n = 25; dermatome, n = 22). Differences in proportions for grouped data (outcome 0 and outcome >0) for the total of all visits were Holgers' Index: 0.13 (p = 0.0004; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.058-0.21); sensibility loss: 0.50 (p = 2.2 · 10; 95% CI, 0.42-0.58); pain: 0.096 (p = 0.006; 95% CI, 0.026-0.17). Soft tissue reactions and pain were most prominent in the early postoperative period, whereas issues with sensibility loss subsided throughout the 1-year follow-up period. No implants were lost. In a randomized trial for BAHI surgery, the linear incision with no subcutaneous reduction had a faster healing time and inflicted less pain and sensibility loss than the dermatome technique. The long-term soft tissue problems were similar in the two groups, thus favoring the linear incision, which is less invasive.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057318464

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25695686

DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000731


Related references

Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: dermatome versus linear incision technique. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 274(1): 109-117, 2016

Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 275(7): 1737-1747, 2018

Bone-anchored hearing device surgery: Linear incision without soft tissue reduction. A prospective study. Acta Otorrinolaringologica Espanola 66(5): 258-263, 2017

Punch and Drill: Implantation of Bone Anchored Hearing Device Through a Minimal Skin Punch Incision Versus Implantation With Dermatome and Soft Tissue Reduction. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology 125(3): 199-206, 2016

Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery Versus the Linear Incision Technique With Soft Tissue Preservation for Bone Conduction Hearing Implants: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Otology and Neurotology 39(7): 882-893, 2018

Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery compared to the linear incision technique without soft tissue reduction for bone conduction hearing implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 17(1): 540, 2018

Simplified bone-anchored hearing aid insertion using a linear incision without soft tissue reduction. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 127 Suppl 2: S33-S38, 2014

Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery without soft-tissue reduction: up to 42 months of follow-up. Otology and Neurotology 35(9): 1596-1600, 2015

Bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: our experience with linear incision and punch techniques. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica 38(3): 257-263, 2018

Histologic evaluation of soft tissue integration of experimental abutments for bone anchored hearing implants using surgery without soft tissue reduction. Otology and Neurotology 33(8): 1445-1451, 2013

First Report: Linear Incision for Placement of a Magnetically Coupled Bone-Anchored Hearing Implant. Otology and Neurotology 38(2): 221-224, 2017

Successful loading of a bone-anchored hearing implant at two weeks after surgery: randomized trial of two surgical methods and detailed stability measurements. Otology and Neurotology 36(2): E51-E57, 2015

A Retrospective Cohort Study on the Influence of Comorbidity on Soft Tissue Reactions, Revision Surgery, and Implant Loss in Bone-anchored Hearing Implants. Otology and Neurotology 36(5): 812-818, 2015

Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: inside or outside the line of incision?. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 273(11): 3713-3722, 2016

Bone Anchored Hearing Implant Surgery: 1 Year Follow-Up Data Shows No Effect of Hydroxyapatite Coating on Soft Tissue Reaction After Loading at 1 Week. Otology and Neurotology 38(6): E152-E158, 2017