4.4 Article

Post-operative infection rates in linear vs. punch technique for bone anchored hearing systems

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102745

关键词

Bone anchored; Osseointegrated; Percutaneous

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study investigates the post-operative infection rates between two surgical approaches: linear incision and the punch technique for bone anchored hearing systems. Secondarily, it investigates the impact of smoking, comorbid disease, and operative conditions on post-operative skin reactions and infections. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at a single tertiary care institution. A single surgeon completed either of the two techniques on adult patients with mixed, conductive hearing loss, or single sided-deafness. Patients included had at least 6 months follow-up, and were evaluated for preexisting illnesses, perioperative complications, length of surgery, and post-operative complications including infection after surgery. Post -operative soft tissue around the abutment was assessed with Holgers Classification scale. Results: Fifty-one patients were included in this study, 28 female and 23 males with an average age of 68.8. Thirty-three patients underwent linear incision surgery and 18 had the punch technique. Overall 9 patients (17.6%) had post-operative infections requiring topical or oral antibiotic treatment. Six (18.2%) were in the linear group and 3 (16.7%) in the punch group. There was no statistically significantly difference (p = 1). A multivariate analysis compared age, sex, obesity, DM, operative time, skin thickness, and abutment size to postoperative skin infection rates requiring treatment. Only DM was statistically correlative with infection (p = 0.02). Conclusion: No significant differences in post-operative infections were identified comparing linear incision and the punch techniques. Patients with diabetes had a higher incidence of post-operative skin infections rates.

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

4.4
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