These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Clinical Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery With a Modified Drill System for Inserting Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants.
    Author: Caspers CJI, Kruyt IJ, Mylanus EAM, Hol MKS.
    Journal: Otol Neurotol; 2021 Sep 01; 42(8):1192-1200. PubMed ID: 34191785.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare 6-months outcomes of the modified minimally invasive Ponto surgery (m-MIPS) to both the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation (LIT-TP), and original MIPS (o-MIPS) for inserting bone-anchored hearing implants (BAHIs). STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory pilot study with one test group and two historical control groups. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: In the test group, 24 patients (25 implants) were prospectively included. Each control group comprised 25 patients (25 implants) who participated in previously conducted clinical trials. INTERVENTIONS: The test group received a BAHI using m-MIPS. The two control groups underwent surgery using the LIT-TP and o-MIPS, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Implant survival, implant stability, and surgery-related variables were compared between the test and control groups. Soft tissue status, skin sensibility, and subjective numbness were compared between m-MIPS and LIT-TP only. RESULTS: Implant survival was comparable between m-MIPS and LIT-TP, whereas implant stability measurements were slightly lower for m-MIPS. M-MIPS resulted in comparable adverse skin reactions and skin sensibility, significantly reduced surgical time and slightly improved subjective numbness, compared with LIT-TP. Between m-MIPS and o-MIPS, no statistically significant differences in implant survival, implant stability and surgical time were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A trend toward lower implant loss rates after m-MIPS was observed, when compared with o-MIPS. M-MIPS seems to be a good alternative to LIT-TP for inserting BAHIs, since most clinical outcomes were either comparable or slightly better for m-MIPS. Upon deciding on which technique to use, larger studies on implant survival should be performed. Furthermore, other aspects such as costs, training aspects and surgical experience should be evaluated.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]