Implantation of Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices Through a Minimal Skin Punch Incision Versus the Epidermal Flap Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the minimal skin punch incision without additional skin incision or soft tissue reduction with the epidermal flap technique and soft tissue reduction, for the implantation of percutaneous bone-anchored hearing devices. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred seventeen patients underwent 220 implantations. Sixty five cases underwent implantation by means of a skin punch resection without soft tissue reduction (punch group) and 155 cases underwent epidermal flap and soft tissue reduction (dermatome group). Main outcome measures were duration of surgery, perioperative adverse events, skin tolerance, and revision surgery. RESULTS: The duration of surgery was shorter in the punch group (p < 0.001). The percentage of normal to moderate skin reactions, by Holgers classification, was higher in the punch group (90%) than in the dermatome group (84%). No severe reactions occurred in the punch group, but did occur in 7% in the dermatome group. These differences, although clinically important, did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.071). The rate of revision surgeries was not significantly different between the two groups. The indication for revision was different: mainly for skin issues in the dermatome group, against implant dislocation in the punch group. CONCLUSION: The implantation of the currently available percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implants with a minimal skin punch resection shortened duration of surgery and improved postoperative appearance, while preserving a good skin tolerance. In the punch group, there were less skin issues leading to revision surgery, however we did observe more implant dislocations needing revision surgery.

Punch and Drill: Implantation of Bone Anchored Hearing Device Through a Minimal Skin Punch Incision Versus Implantation With Dermatome and Soft Tissue Reduction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 surgical techniques for implantation of a percutaneous bone anchored hearing device: (1) a minimal skin punch incision without additional skin incision or soft tissue reduction and (2) implantation with an epidermal flap and soft tissues reduction. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty patients consecutively implanted (18 males and 22 females). Twenty patients underwent implantation by means of epidermal flap and soft tissues reduction (dermatome group), and 20 patients underwent skin punch resection without soft tissues reduction (punch group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: surgical adverse events, surgical time, skin healing, skin tolerance (Holgers classification), and skin appearance and implant failure. RESULTS: The surgical time was shorter with the punch technique (P < .05). The postoperative healing was satisfactory in both groups. All implants were loaded after the healing period. The skin tolerance was good in both groups by Holgers classification (punch, 85.7%/dermatome, 86%) with no significant difference. There were no severe adverse skin events in the punch group. The appearance of the skin around the implant was improved by the punch technique. CONCLUSION: The implantation of the currently available percutaneous bone anchored hearing implants with a minimal skin punch skin resection without additional skin incision or soft tissue reduction shortens the surgery and improves the postoperative appearance. The skin tolerance is at least as good as with techniques with that include soft tissue reduction.

Benefit of the Vibrant Soundbridge device in patients implanted for 5 to 8 years.

OBJECTIVES: To assess audiological performance, satisfaction rate, and side effects of 100 patients who have been using the middle ear implant Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) for 5 to 8 yr when compared with data collected from 3 to 18 mo postsurgery. DESIGN: Audiological testing and subjective evaluation using self-assessment scales were performed in 77 out of the 100 patients using the VSB for 5 to 8 years. The results were compared to data collected 3 months (audiological testing) and 18 months (self-assessment scales) after surgery. Twenty-three patients have not been evaluated for different reported reasons. RESULTS: Pure-tone hearing thresholds decreased similarly in both implanted and contralateral ears. The satisfaction ratings and the functional gain provided by the VSB remained stable. Speech comprehension in quiet conditions without the VSB decreased from 56 to 37% in 5 to 8 yr, but an 81% score was achieved with the VSB. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the performance of the VSB does not deteriorate for more than 5 yr, without adverse effect. These results confirm the safety and the effectiveness of the VSB with a long-term follow-up.

Vibrant soundbridge middle ear implant in otosclerosis: technique - indication.

With our growing experience with the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) middle ear implant, the question emerged of its indication in mixed hearing loss due to advanced otosclerosis. We describe the VSB implantation technique in primary otosclerosis performed together with a stapedotomy piston procedure. Hearing results under headphone and free-field conditions show that the stapedotomy piston procedure closes the air-bone gap as expected and that the VSB provides comparable gain to that usually recorded for pure sensorineural hearing loss. The gains of the two procedures add up. These results open the field of mixed hearing loss to the VSB middle ear implant.