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

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.

Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery Versus the Linear Incision Technique With Soft Tissue Preservation for Bone Conduction Hearing Implants: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical outcomes of the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique with those of the linear incision technique with soft-tissue preservation for bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS). DESIGN: Sponsor-initiated multicenter, open, randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Maastricht University Medical Centre, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente and Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, all situated in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four adult patients eligible for unilateral BAHS surgery.Interventions Single-stage BAHS surgery with 1:1 randomization to the linear incision technique with soft-tissue preservation (control) or the MIPS (test) group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Primary objective: compare the incidence of inflammation (Holgers Index ≥ 2) during 12 weeks' follow-up after surgery. Secondary objectives: skin dehiscence, pain scores, loss of sensibility around the implant, soft-tissue overgrowth, skin sagging, implant extrusion, cosmetic results, surgical time, wound healing and Implant Stability Quotient measurements. RESULTS: Sixty-three subjects were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. No significant difference was found for the incidence of inflammation between groups. Loss of skin sensibility, cosmetic outcomes, skin sagging, and surgical time were significantly better in the test group. No statistically significant differences were found for dehiscence, pain, and soft-tissue overgrowth. A nonsignificant difference in extrusion was found for the test group. The Implant Stability Quotient was statistically influenced by the surgical technique, abutment length, and time. CONCLUSION: No significant differences between the MIPS and the linear incision techniques were observed regarding skin inflammation. MIPS results in a statistically significant reduction in the loss of skin sensibility, less skin sagging, improved cosmetic results, and reduced surgical time. Although nonsignificant, the implant extrusion rate warrants further research.

Clinical profile of patients with adult-onset eosinophilic asthma.

Adult-onset eosinophilic asthma is increasingly recognised as a severe and difficult-to-treat subtype of asthma. In clinical practice, early recognition of patients with this asthma subtype is important because it may have treatment implications. Therefore, physicians need to know the distinct characteristics of this asthma phenotype. The objective of the present study was to determine the characteristic profile of patients with adult-onset eosinophilic asthma. 130 patients with adult-onset (>18 years of age) asthma and high blood eosinophil counts (≥0.3×109 L-1) were compared with 361 adult-onset asthma patients with low (<0.3×109 L-1) blood eosinophils. Measurements included a series of clinical, functional and imaging parameters. Patients with high blood eosinophils were more often male, had less well controlled asthma and higher exacerbation rates, despite the use of higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids. They had higher levels of total IgE without more sensitisation to common inhaled allergens. In addition, these patients had worse lung function, and more often showed fixed airflow limitation, air trapping, nasal polyposis and abnormalities on sinus computed tomography scanning. Chronic rhinosinusitis, air trapping and male sex were three independent factors associated with blood eosinophilia (adjusted OR 3.8 (95% CI 1.7-8.1), 3.0 (95% CI 1.1-8.1) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.3-4.4), respectively). Patients with adult-onset asthma with elevated blood eosinophils exhibit a distinct profile, which can readily be recognised in clinical practice.

Prevalence of hearing loss in 1598 adults with an intellectual disability: cross-sectional population based study.

A cross-sectional epidemiological study on prevalence of hearing loss was carried out in an age- and Down's syndrome- stratified random sample of 1598 persons drawn from a base population of 9012 persons, representative of the Dutch adult population of intellectual disability (ID) service users. The re-weighted population prevalence is 30.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.7-33.0%). Subgroup prevalences range from 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-13.3) in the subgroup aged 18-30 years with ID by other causes than Down's syndrome, up to 100% (95% CI: 79.4-100%) in adults over 60 years of age with Down's syndrome. Down's syndrome (OR 5.18, 95% CI 3.80-7.07) and age were confirmed to be risk factors. Age-related increase in prevalence in persons with Down's syndrome appears to occur approximately three decades earlier, and in persons with ID by other causes approximately one decade earlier than in the general population.