4.2 Article

Clinical Outcome of the Simplified Surgical Technique for BAHA Implantation

期刊

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1100-1108

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31818599b8

关键词

BAHA; Bone-anchored hearing aid; Osseointegration; Surgical technique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcome of a simplified surgical technique for BAHA implantation, in terms of implant failure and its causes. Design: Retrospective analysis. Methods: Analysis of a consecutive cohort of 142 patients (150 loaded implants) fitted with the BAHA implant between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 1999. The simplified surgical Nijmegen technique comprises a longitudinal postauricular incision, extensive subcutaneous tissue reduction, and removal of the periosteum. Clinical outcomes were the rate of implant failures, its causes for this, and skin reactions around the percutaneous implants classified according to Holgers. Clinical results were compared with other BAHA series. Results: Mean follow-up was 5.6 +/- 2.7 years (range, 0-10.5 yr). Holgers grade 2 or more severe skin reactions were seen in 6.5% of the 1,038 follow-up visits. Extrusion of the implants occur-red as a result of failed osseointegration (n = 3), trauma (n = 5), infection (n = 1), and (other) medical reasons (n 5 explanations). Total extrusion rate was 9.3%. Only 3% (1 and 3) were due to failed osseointegration or infection around the percutaneous implant. Conclusion: The modified Nijmegen surgical technique is a simple straightforward surgical procedure without the use of a pedicled skin flap. Surgery takes approximately 20 minutes. Meticulous performance of the procedure is considered important to achieve optimal results in the long-term. Particularly the soft tissue reduction has to be done with great care. In terms of the low rates of implant failure and adverse tissue reactions, the Nijmegen surgical technique proved to be a good alternative to other techniques.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据