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: Single-Center Experience Evaluating Clinical Outcomes of a Novel-Guided Drill System for Percutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implant.
    Author: Shoman NM.
    Journal: Otol Neurotol; 2022 Sep 01; 43(8):e797-e803. PubMed ID: 35877782.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Evaluate intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of a novel guided drill system for percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implants. METHODS: Between January 2016 and February 2021, patients age ≥18 years deemed potential candidates for a bone-anchored hearing device, were formally assessed for candidacy and counseling. Those that qualified and opted to proceed were added to a prospectively maintained database, including demographic, clinical, and audiologic data. Intraoperative findings were reported, as were clinical outcomes at 7 days, 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively. The Holgers index was used to grade soft tissue reactions. RESULTS: One hundred patients underwent the procedure. There were 56 women, and mean age was 54 years (18-84 yr). Ninety-six were done under local anesthetic. Mean surgical time was 13 minutes (9-27 min). No significant intraoperative events were noted. There were nine cases of implant loss, all in the first 50 cases. Mean duration of implant loss was 3.6 weeks (range, 2-5 wk). At the first postoperative visit, 82 had Holgers 0, 16 Holgers 1, 2 Holgers 2, and none Holgers 3. At the second postoperative visit, excluding the 9 with implant loss, 83 (91%) had Holgers 0, 6 (7%) Holgers 1, and 2 (2%) Holgers 2. None were Holgers 3. CONCLUSIONS: The current study represents, to our knowledge, the largest series on the novel guided drill technique. Results show it is safe and efficient with low soft tissue complication rates. Drill bit design and technical modifications may have helped lower implant loss rate in this series over time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]