Long-Term Results of the Linear Incision Technique With Tissue Reduction Versus Tissue Preservation for Inserting Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants: The Ongoing Optimization in Bone Implant Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of the linear incision technique with tissue reduction (LIT-TR) and the linear incision technique with tissue preservation (LIT-TP) for inserting bone-anchored hearing implants (BAHIs). STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large general teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 231 adult patients were included between August 2005 and October 2020, with a minimum follow-up time of 6 months. INTERVENTION: The test group received a BAHI using the LIT-TP (N = 147). The control group underwent surgery using the LIT-TR (N = 84). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Soft tissue reactions, skin thickening, postoperative complications (e.g., wound dehiscence), and implant loss were compared between the test and control group. Furthermore, Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB (Mölnlycke, Sweden) and Oticon Medical AB (Askim, Sweden) implants/abutments within the LIT-TP cohort were compared. Validated questionnaires were used to quantify patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: Significantly more cases with wound dehiscence and adverse soft tissue reactions (Holgers ≥2) were observed in the LIT-TR cohort (p < 0.001). However, the LIT-TP cohort showed significantly more cases with skin thickening (requiring treatment) within the first 2 years after implantation. There were no differences in implant loss rates, overall soft tissue reactions (Holgers >1), and overall HRQoL between the two patient groups. Significant improvement in the patients' HRQoL after implementation of a BAHI was found in both techniques. The Ponto Wide implant/abutment showed less frequent skin thickening (requiring treatment) and fewer soft tissue reactions compared with the BIA400 implant/abutment. CONCLUSION: This large-scale study demonstrates that the LIT-TP shows excellent long-term outcomes, including a low incidence of implant failure.

Extracorporeal treatment of metforminassociated lactic acidosis in clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To assess whether extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) improves outcome of patients with metformin-associated lactic acidosis (MALA) and to evaluate the clinical applicability of the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup (EXTRIP) criteria for starting ECTR in metformin poisoning. METHODS: Patients with metformin serum concentrations above 2 mg/l who were admitted in the Deventer Teaching Hospital between January 2000 and July 2019 and complied with the definition of MALA (pH < 7.35 and lactate concentration > 5 mmol/l) were included. Mortality and clinical parameters of patients treated with ECTR or not were compared. In addition, treatment of MALA in clinical practice was verified against the criteria of EXTRIP. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included. Lactate (13.8 versus 10.5 mmol/l, p = 0.01), creatinine (575 versus 254 umol/l, p < 0.01)), metformin (29.4 versus 8.6 mg/l, p < 0.01) concentrations, and vasopressor requirement (72% versus 23%, p < 0.01) were significantly higher in the ECTR-group. Blood pH (7.05 versus 7.19, p = 0.03) and bicarbonate (6 versus 11 mmol/l, p < 0.01) were significantly lower. Mortality, length of hospital stay, and mechanical ventilation requirement were not statistically different. In 83% of patients, treatment of MALA was in accordance with the EXTRIP criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no statistical benefit in mortality shown from ECTR, ECTR might be lifesaving in MALA, considering the ECTR-group was significantly sicker than the non-ECTR-group. The majority of patients were treated in line with the EXTRIP criteria. Severity of lactic acidosis and renal impairment were the main indications for initiating ECTR.