» Articles » PMID: 33716934

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

Abstract

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. 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. 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%). 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. www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02438618.

Citing Articles

Minimally invasive surgery as a new clinical standard for bone anchored hearing implants-real-world data from 10 years of follow-up and 228 surgeries.

Cruz L, Danieli F, Hakansson M, Johansson M, Dos Santos F, Reis A Front Surg. 2023; 10:1209927.

PMID: 37465065 PMC: 10351910. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1209927.


Post-implantation clinical cost analysis between transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices.

Aukema T, Teunissen E, Janssen A, Hol M, Mylanus E Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023; 281(1):117-127.

PMID: 37421428 PMC: 10764476. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-023-08099-2.


The Minimally Invasive Star-Shaped Incision Technique and the Linear Incision Technique With Tissue Preservation for Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Strijbos R, Salameh S, Bezdjian A, Daniel S, Thomeer H Front Surg. 2022; 9:863997.

PMID: 35756480 PMC: 9231669. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.863997.


Evaluation of a New Drill System for Placement of Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices.

Strijbos R, Straatman L, Stokroos R, Johansson M Front Surg. 2022; 9:858117.

PMID: 35388366 PMC: 8977416. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.858117.


Multimodal Analysis of the Tissue Response to a Bone-Anchored Hearing Implant: Presentation of a Two-Year Case Report of a Patient With Recurrent Pain, Inflammation, and Infection, Including a Systematic Literature Review.

Johansson M, Calon T, Omar O, Shah F, Trobos M, Thomsen P Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021; 11:640899.

PMID: 33859952 PMC: 8042154. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.640899.

References
1.
Kim G, Ju H, Lee S, Kim H, Kwon J, Seo Y . Efficacy of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids in Single-Sided Deafness: A Systematic Review. Otol Neurotol. 2017; 38(4):473-483. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001359. View

2.
Iseri M, Orhan K, Tuncer U, Kara A, Durgut M, Guldiken Y . Transcutaneous Bone-anchored Hearing Aids Versus Percutaneous Ones: Multicenter Comparative Clinical Study. Otol Neurotol. 2015; 36(5):849-53. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000733. View

3.
Van Hoof M, Wigren S, Ivarsson Blechert J, Joore M, Mateijsen D, Bom S . Clinical Outcomes of Soft Tissue Preservation Surgery With Hydroxyapatite-Coated Abutments Compared to Traditional Percutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implant Surgery-A Pragmatic Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial. Front Surg. 2020; 7:5. PMC: 7066494. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.00005. View

4.
Kruyt I, Kok H, Bosman A, Nelissen R, Mylanus E, Hol M . Three-Year Clinical and Audiological Outcomes of Percutaneous Implants for Bone Conduction Devices: Comparison Between Tissue Preservation Technique and Tissue Reduction Technique. Otol Neurotol. 2019; 40(3):335-343. PMC: 6380444. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002105. View

5.
Tjellstrom A, Lindstrom J, HALLEN O, Albrektsson T, Branemark P . Osseointegrated titanium implants in the temporal bone. A clinical study on bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol. 1981; 2(4):304-10. View