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

Ruben M Strijbos, Louise V Straatman, Tim G A Calon, Martin L Johansson, Arthur J G de Bruijn, Herbert van den Berge, Mariette Wagenaar, Edwin Eichhorn, Miranda Janssen, Sofia Jonhede, Joost van Tongeren, Marcus Holmberg, Robert Stokroos, Ruben M Strijbos, Louise V Straatman, Tim G A Calon, Martin L Johansson, Arthur J G de Bruijn, Herbert van den Berge, Mariette Wagenaar, Edwin Eichhorn, Miranda Janssen, Sofia Jonhede, Joost van Tongeren, Marcus Holmberg, Robert Stokroos

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.

Keywords: MIPS; bone conduction device (BCD); hearing loss; minimally invasive ponto surgery; soft tissue reactions; surgical outcomes; surgical technique; tissue preservation.

Conflict of interest statement

MLJ, SJ, and MH are paid employees of Oticon Medical. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2021 Strijbos, Straatman, Calon, Johansson, de Bruijn, van den Berge, Wagenaar, Eichhorn, Janssen, Jonhede, van Tongeren, Holmberg and Stokroos.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Subject flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Stacked bar chart for the highest observed Holgers Index scores during standard follow-up visits. In the right-sided figure (B), missing data were corrected with the last observation carried forward technique. Last visit (“2 years”) was at 22 months of follow-up.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Boxplots of ISQ measurements during standard follow-up visits with a subdivision for different abutment lengths. ISQ measurements are displayed for ISQ Low (A) en ISQ High (B). Asterisks (*) indicate a significant difference as calculated with a Mann–Whitney U-test (level of significance p < 0.05). Last visit (“2 years”) was at 22 months of follow-up.

References

    1. Tjellström A, Lindström J, Hallén O, Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI. Osseointegrated titanium implants in the temporal bone. A clinical study on bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol. (1981) 2:304–10.
    1. Snik AFM, Mylanus EAM, Proops DW, Wolfaardt JF, Hodgetts WE, et al. . Consensus statement on the BAHA system: where do we stand at present? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. (2005) 195:2–12. 10.1177/0003489405114s1201
    1. Dun CAJ, Faber HT, de Wolf MJF, Cremers CWRJ, Hol MKS. An overview of different systems: the bone-anchored hearing aid. Adv Othorhinolaryngol. (2011) 71:22–31. 10.1159/000323577
    1. Kim G, Ju HM, Lee SH, Kim HS, Kwon JA, Seo YJ. Efficacy of bone-anchored hearing aids in single-sided deafness: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol. (2017) 38:473–83. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001359
    1. Kiringoda R, Lustig R. A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol. (2013) 34:790–4. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318291c651
    1. Holgers KM, Tjellstrom A, Bjursten LM, Erlandsson BE. Soft tissue reactions around percutaneous implants: a clinical study of soft tissue conditions around skin-penetrating titanium implants for bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol. (1988) 9:56–9.
    1. Verheij E, Bezdjian A, Grolman W, Thomeer HG. A systematic review on complications of tissue preservation surgical techniques in percutaneous bone conduction hearing devices. Otol Neurotol. (2016) 37:829–37. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001091
    1. Van Hoof M, Wigren S, Ivarsson Blechert J, Joore MA, Mateijsen DJM, Bom SJH, et al. . 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. 10.3389/fsurg.2020.00005
    1. Høgsbro M, Agger A, Johansen LV. 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. Otol Neurotol. (2017) 38:e152–8. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001442
    1. Kruyt IJ, Nelissen RC, Mylanus EAM, Hol MKS. Three-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing a 4.5-mm-wide to a 3.75-mm-wide titanium implant for bone conduction hearing. Otol Neurotol. (2018) 39:609–15. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001761
    1. Foghsgaard S, Caye-Thomasen P. A new wide-diameter bone-anchored hearing impant: prospective 1-year data on complications, implant stability, and survival. Otol Neurotol. (2015) 36:1123–4. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000579
    1. Van den Berg R, Stokroos RJ, Hof JR, Chenault MN. Bone-anchored hearing aid: a comparison of surgical techniques. Otol Neurotol. (2010) 31:129–35. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181c29fec
    1. Mohamad S, Khan I, Hey SY, Hussain SS. A systematic review on skin complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in relation to surgical techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. (2016) 273:559–65. 10.1007/s00405-014-3436-1
    1. De Wolf MJ, Hol MK, Huygen PL, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW. Clinical outcome of the simplified surgical technique for BAHA implantation. Otol Neurotol. (2008) 29:1100–8. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31818599b8
    1. Strijbos RM, Bom SJH, Zwerver S, Hol MKS. Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: dermatome versus linear incision technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. (2017) 274:109–17. 10.1007/s00405-016-4210-3
    1. Cooper T, McDonald B, Ho A. Passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol. (2017) 38:1225–32. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001518
    1. Hol MKS, Nelissen REC, Agterberg MJH, Cremers CWRJ, Snik AFM. Comparison between a new implantable transcutaneous bone conductor and percutaneous bone-conduction hearing implant. Otol Neurotol. (2013) 34:1071–5. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182868608
    1. Iseri M, Orhan KS, Tuncre U, Kara A, Durgut M, Guldiken Y„, et al. . Transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids versus percutaneous ones: multicenter comparative clinical study. Otol Neurotol. (2015) 36:849–53. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000733
    1. Hultcrantz M, Lanis A. A five-year follow-up on the osseointegration of bone-anchored hearing device implantation without tissue reduction. Otol Neurotol. (2014) 35:1480–5. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000352
    1. Singam S, Williams R, Saxby C, Houlihan FP. Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery without soft-tissue reduction: up to 42 months of follow-up. Otol Neurotol. (2014) 35:1596–600. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000522
    1. Altuna X, Navarro JJ, Palicio I, Álvarez L. Bone-anchored hearing device surgery: Linear incision without soft tissue reduction. A prospective study. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. (2015) 66:258–63. 10.1016/j.otorri.2014.09.007
    1. Høgsbro M, Agger A, Johansen LV. Bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: randomized trial of dermatome versus linear incision without soft tissue reduction—clinical measures. Otol Neurotol. (2015) 36:805–11. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000731
    1. Caruso A, Giannuzzi AL, Sozzi V, Sanna M. Bone anchored hearing implants without skin thinning: the Gruppo Otologico surgical and audiological experience. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. (2017) 274:695–700. 10.1007/s00405-016-4305-x
    1. Kruyt IJ, Kok H, Bosman A, Nelissen RC, Mylanus EAM, Hol MKS. 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) 40:335–43. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002105
    1. Van Hoof M, Wigren S, Blechert JI, Joore M, Molin M, et al. . A multicenter randomized controlled trial of soft tissue preservation using a hydroxyapatite-coated abutment in percutaneous bone conduction hearing implant surgery – 1-year clinical outcomes. J Laryngol Otol. (2016) 130(S3):81–2. 10.1017/S0022215116003388
    1. Van der Stee EHH, Strijbos RM, Bom SJH, Hol MKS. Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. (2018) 275:1737–47. 10.1007/s00405-018-5005-5
    1. Martínez P, López F, Gómez JR. Cutaneous complications in osseointegrated implants: comparison between classic and tissue preservation techniques. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. (2015) 66:148–53. 10.1016/j.otorri.2014.07.003
    1. Reznitsky M, Wielandt K, Foghsgaard S. Wide diameter bone-anchored hearing system implants: a comparison of long-term follow-up data between tissue reduction and tissue preservation techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. (2018) 276:349–56. 10.1007/s00405-018-5228-5
    1. Goldman RA, Georgolios A, Shaia WT. The punch method for bone-anchored hearing aid placement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2013) 148:878–80. 10.1177/0194599813476666
    1. Gordon SA, Coelho DH. Minimally invasive surgery for osseointegrated auditory implants: a comparison of linear versus punch techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2015) 152:1089–93. 10.1177/0194599815571532
    1. Di Giustino F, Vannucchi P, Pecci R, Mengucci A, Santimone R, et al. . Bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: our experience with linear incision and punch techniques. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. (2018) 38:257–63. 10.14639/0392-100X-1694
    1. Dumon T, Wegner I, Sperling N, Grolman W. Implantation of bone-anchored hearing devices through a minimal skin punch incision versus the epidermal flap technique. Otol Neurotol. (2017) 38:89–96. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001258
    1. Johansson ML, Stokroos RJ, Banga R, Hol MK, Mylanus EA, et al. . Short-term results from seventy-six patients receiving a bone-anchored hearing implant installed with a novel minimally invasive surgery technique. Clin Otolaryngol. (2017) 42:1043–8. 10.1111/coa.12803
    1. Sardiwalla Y, Jufas N, Morris DP. Direct cost comparison of minimally invasive punch technique versus traditional approaches for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2017) 46:46. 10.1186/s40463-017-0222-2
    1. Calon TGA, Johansson ML, de Bruijn AJG, van den Berge H, Wagenaar M, et al. . Minimally invasive ponto surgery versus the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation for bone conduction hearing implants: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Otol Neurotol. (2018) 39:882–93. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001852
    1. Sardiwalla Y, Jufas N, Morris DP. Long term follow-up demonstrating stability and patient satisfaction of minimally invasive punch technique for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2018) 47:71. 10.1186/s40463-018-0316-5
    1. Calon TG, van Hoof M, van den Berge H, de Bruijn AJ, van Tongeren J, et al. . 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. Trails. (2016) 17:540. 10.1186/s13063-016-1662-0
    1. Nederlandse Vereniging van Keel-Neus-Oorheelkunde en Heelkunde van het Hoofd-Halsgebied . Richtlijn Bone Conduction Devices. Retrieved from:
    1. Caspers CJI, Kruyt IJ, Mylanus EAM, Hol MKS. Six-month clinical outcomes for bone-anchored hearing implants: comparison between minimally invasive ponto surgery and the linear incision technique with tissue preservation. Otol Neurotol. (2020) 41:e475–83. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002562
    1. Coltro PS, Alves HR, Gallafrio ST, Busnardo FF, Ferreira MC. Sensibility of the ear after otoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. (2012) 68:120–4. 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820bcc11
    1. Nelissen RC, Wigren S, Flynn MC, Meijer Mylanus EA, Hol MK. Application and interpretation of resonance frequency analysis in auditory osseointegrated implants: a review of literature and establishment of practical recommendations. Otol Neurotol. (2015) 36:1518–24. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000833
    1. Shah FA, Johansson ML, Omar O, Simonsson H, Palmquist A, Thomsen P. Laser-modified surface enhances osseointegration and biomechanical anchorage of commercially pure titanium implants for bone-anchored hearing systems. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0157504. 10.1371/journal.pone.0157504
    1. Johansson ML. The Percutaneous implant. The effects of design, host site and surgery on the tissue response. Thesis. Department of Biomaterials Institute of Clinical Sciences Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (2018).
    1. Dun CA, Faber HT, de Wolf MJ, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW, Hol MK. Assessment of more than 1, 000 implanted percutaneous bone conduction devices: skin reactions and implant survival. Otol Neurotol. (2012) 33:192–8. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318241c0bf
    1. Sclar AG. Guidelines for Flapless Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. (2007) 65(7 Suppl 1):20–32. 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.017
    1. Möhhlhenrich SC, Modabber A, Steiner T, Mitchell DA, Hölzle F. Heat generation and drill wear during dental implant site preparation: systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. (2015) 53:679–89. 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.05.004
    1. Johansson ML, Eriksson T, Omar O. In vitro and ex vivo evaluation of a novel guided drill system for bone-anchored hearing implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. (2019) 34:e85–98. 10.11607/jomi.7590
    1. Dominguez Campelo L, Dominguez Camara JR. Flapless implant surgery: a 10-year clinical retrospective analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. (2002) 17:271–6.
    1. Becker W, Goldstein M, Becker BE, Sennerby L. Minimally invasive flapless implant surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. (2005) 7 Suppl. 1:S21–7. 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00071.x
    1. Moraschini V, Velloso G, Luz D, Porto Barboza E. Implant survival rates, marginal bone level changes, and complications in full-mouth rehabilitation with flapless computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. (2015) 44:892–901. 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.02.013
    1. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. (1995) 16:176–86. 10.1097/00003446-199504000-00005
    1. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2003) 1:54. 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54
    1. Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. (2012) 21:167–76. 10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2
    1. Zeitler DM, Herman BS, Snapp HA, Telischi FF, Angeli SI. Ethnic disparity in skin complications following bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. (2012) 121:549–54. 10.1177/000348941212100809

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel