Stability, Survival, and Tolerability of an Auditory Osseointegrated Implant for Bone Conduction Hearing: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Issue 8 (September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: den Besten, Christine A.; Stalfors, Joacim; Wigren, Stina; Blechert, Johan Ivarsson; Flynn, Mark; Eeg-Olofsson, Måns; Aggarwal, Rohini; Green, Kevin; Nelissen, Rik C.; Mylanus, Emmanuel A. M.; Hol, Myrthe K. S.
• Is Part Of: Otology & neurotology. Volume 37:Issue 8(2016)
• Page Start: 1077
• Page End: 1083
• Publication Date: 2016-09
• Subjects: Auditory osseointegrated implant -- Baha -- Bone-anchored hearing aid -- Bone conduction -- Hearing loss -- Implant loss -- Implant stability -- ISQ -- Soft tissue reactions; Otology -- Periodicals; Ear -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Skull base -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.8005
• DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001111
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1531-7129

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To compare implant stability, survival, and soft tissue reactions for a novel (test) and previous generation (control) percutaneous auditory osseointegrated implant for bone conduction hearing at long-term follow-up of 5 years. Study Design: Single follow-up visit of a previously completed multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Patients: Fifty-seven of the 77 participants of a completed randomized controlled trial on a new auditory osseointegrated implant underwent a single follow-up visit 5 years after implantation, which comprised implant stability measurements and collection of Holgers scores. Additionally, implant survival was recorded for all 77 patients from the original trial. Results: The test implant showed significantly higher implant stability quotient (ISQ) values compared with the control implant throughout the 5-year follow-up. Mean area under the curve of ISQ high from baseline to 5 years was 71.6 (standard deviation [SD] ±2.0) and 66.7 (SD ±3.4) for the test and control implant, respectively ( p < 0.0001). For both implants, the mean ISQ value recorded at 5 years was higher compared with implantation (test group +2.03 [SD ±2.55, within group p < 0.0001] and control group +2.25 [SD ±4.95, within group p = 0.12]). No difference was noticed in increase from baseline between groups ( p = 0.64). Furthermore, evaluation of soft tissue reactions continued to show superiority of the test implant. At the 5-year follow-up visit, one patient (2.5%) presented with a Holgers grade 2 in the test group, compared with four patients (23.5%) in the control group ( p = 0.048); no patient presented with more severe soft tissue reactions. Excluding explantations, the survival rate was 95.8% for the test group and 95.0% for the control group. The corresponding rates including explantations were 93.9 and 90.0%. Conclusion: The test implant showed superiority in terms of higher mean ISQ values and less adverse soft tissue reactions, both at the single 5-year follow-up visit and during the complete follow-up. In addition, both implants showed an equally high implant survival.