Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:58:23.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survival of the 8.5 mm osseointegrated abutment, and its utility in the obese patient

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2013

M D Darley  and
A A Mikulec
M D Darley
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, USA
A A Mikulec*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Dr A A Mikulec, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 6th Floor FDT, 3635 Vista Ave, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Most of the literature regarding osseointegrated implantation for hearing rehabilitation focuses on the 5.5 mm abutment. This study aimed to add to the data available on the survival of the 8.5 mm abutment, and to describe its utility in obese patients.

Objective:

To review the outcomes of patients who received a bone-anchored hearing aid implant, and create a model comparing the mechanical forces acting upon combinations of fixture and abutment lengths.

Methods:

Retrospective chart review and mathematical modelling.

Results:

In this retrospective cohort study comprising 25 patients, less abutment overgrowth was observed in the 8.5 mm abutment recipients versus recipients of the 5.5 mm abutment. When the principle of equilibrium of a rigid body was applied, the 8.5 mm abutment was at a calculated mechanical disadvantage compared with the 5.5 mm abutment.

Conclusion:

The 8.5 mm abutment may be useful in patients with copious subcutaneous soft tissue as in the obese population. The 8.5 mm abutment has a calculated mechanical disadvantage, potentially putting the implant under greater mechanical stress; however, the clinical relevance of this is unclear.

Keywords

Hearing AidsHearing Loss, UnilateralRehabilitation of Hearing ImpairmentOsseointegrationAdverse EffectsProsthesis ImplantationInstrumentationObesity
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 643 - 649
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Tjellstrom, A, Hakansson, B. The bone-anchored hearing aid. Design principles, indications and long-term clinical results. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995;28:53–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Koch, DB, Staller, S, Jaax, K, Martin, E. Bioengineering solutions for hearing loss and related disorders. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2005;38:255–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Mikulec, AA. Placement of the BAHA osseointegrated implant in children. Op Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;20:197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Doshi, J, McDermott, AL, Reid, A, Proops, D. The 8.5 mm abutment in children: the Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid program experience. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:612–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Pelosi, S, Chandrasekhar, SS. Soft tissue overgrowth in bone-anchored hearing aid patients: use of 8.5 mm abutment. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:576–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Cutnell, JD, Johnson, KW. Physics, 6th edn.New York: Wiley, 2004;231–65Google Scholar
7Ida, JB, Mansfield, S, Meinzen-Derr, JK, Choo, D. Complications in pediatric osseointegrated implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;144:586–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Badran, K, Arya, AK, Bunstone, D, Mackinnon, N. Long-term complications of bone-anchored hearing aids: a 14-year experience. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:170–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Hinode, D, Tanabe, S, Yokoyama, M, Fujisawa, K, Yamauchi, E, Miyamoto, Y. Influence of smoking on osseointegrated implant failure: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:473–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Hobson, JC, Roper, AJ, Andrew, R, Rothera, MP, Hill, P, Green, KM. Complications of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:132–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11van de Berg, R, Stokroos, RJ, Hof, JR, Chenault, MN. Bone-anchored hearing aid: a comparison of surgical techniques. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:129–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12De Wolf, MJ, Hol, MK, Huygen, PL, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Clinical outcome of the simplified surgical technique for BAHA implantation. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1100–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13De Wolf, MJ, Hol, MK, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Bone-anchored hearing aid surgery in older adults: implant loss and skin reactions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118:525–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Falcone, MT, Kaylie, DM, Labadie, RF, Haynes, DS. Bone-anchored hearing aid abutment skin overgrowth reduction with clobetasol. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:829–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Monksfield, P, Ho, EC, Reid, A, Proops, D. Experience with the longer (8.5 mm) abutment for bone-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:274–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed