Frontiers in Neurology (Feb 2021)

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

  • Ruben M. Strijbos,
  • Ruben M. Strijbos,
  • Louise V. Straatman,
  • Louise V. Straatman,
  • Tim G. A. Calon,
  • Tim G. A. Calon,
  • Martin L. Johansson,
  • Martin L. Johansson,
  • Arthur J. G. de Bruijn,
  • Herbert van den Berge,
  • Mariette Wagenaar,
  • Edwin Eichhorn,
  • Miranda Janssen,
  • Miranda Janssen,
  • Sofia Jonhede,
  • Joost van Tongeren,
  • Marcus Holmberg,
  • Robert Stokroos,
  • Robert Stokroos

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.632987
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12

Abstract

Read online

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.

Keywords