Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:28:15.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Has the use of the linear incision reduced skin complications in bone-anchored hearing aid implantation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

R Roplekar ,
A Lim  and
S S M Hussain
R Roplekar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, UK
A Lim
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, UK
S S M Hussain*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Prof S S M Hussain, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Dundee School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the skin-related complications of the traditional skin flap method with a linear incision method of implantation.

Method:

All cases of bone-anchored hearing aid surgery performed by a single surgeon (n = 117) were compared over two periods: 1999–2011, when the traditional method of skin flap and soft tissue removal was used (group 1; n = 86), and 2012–2013, when linear incision without soft tissue removal was used (group 2; n = 31). All patients were followed up for one year and complications were recorded for that period.

Results:

There were 21 (24.4 per cent) skin-related complications in group 1 (skin overgrowth = 12, wound infection = 8 and numbness = 1) and 3 (9.7 per cent) complications in group 2 (wound infection = 3). Analysis using independent t-tests showed the results to be significant (p < 0.05; 95 per cent confidence interval = 0.0800–0.4473).

Conclusion:

The linear incision without soft tissue removal method for bone-anchored hearing aid implantation reduces skin complication rates.

Keywords

Hearing AidsComplicationsWound HealingWound InfectionOsseointegration
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 6 , June 2016 , pp. 541 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

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

1 Brånemark, PI, Hansson, BO, Adell, R, Breine, U, Lindström, J, Hallén, O et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1997;16:1–132 Google Scholar
2 Proops, DW. The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: surgical methods and complications. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 1996;21:7–12 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Tjellström, A. Osseointegrated systems and their applications in the head and neck. Adv Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;3:39–70 Google Scholar
4 Holgers, KM, Roupe, G, Tjellström, A, Bjursten, LM. Clinical, immunological and bacteriological evaluation of adverse reactions to skin-penetrating titanium implants in the head and neck region. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27:1–7 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Cochlear™ Press Release: Shorter surgery times and soft tissue preservation with new DermaLock™ technology. In: http://www.cochlear.com/wps/wcm/connect/f9e5cf29-3b5d-49c2-b922-a169c0039906/en_corporate_mediacentre_11April2013_baha_newdermalocktechnology_77kb.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=f9e5cf29-3b5d-49c2-b922-a169c0039906 [14 March 2016]Google Scholar