No abstract

No abstract

For optimal placement of the BC-FMT of the BB, preoperative 3D planning is recommended especially in primarily small poorly pneumatized mastoids, hypoplastic mastoids in malformations, reduced bone volume after canal wall down mastoidectomy, or the small mastoids in children. Effort should be made to reduce segmentation and surgical planning time by means of automation.

BackgroundThe aim of this prospective randomized study was to analyze migration and strain transmission of the Metha™ and Nanos™ femoral prostheses.Materials and methodsBetween 1 January 2011 and 2 April 2013, 50 patients were randomized to receive short-stemmed femoral prostheses. Metha™ stems were implanted in 24 patients (12 female, 12 male; mean age 58.7 years; mean body mass index [BMI] 27.4) and Nanos™ stems in 26 patients (10 female, 16 male; mean age 59.7 years; mean BMI 27.1). Longitudinal stem migration, varus−valgus alignment, changes of center of rotation (COR), femoral offset and caput-collum-diaphyseal angle, leg length discrepancy, periprosthetic radiolucent lines incidence, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans were analysed after an average of 98 and 381 days.ResultsThere was no significant change of varus−valgus alignment or clinically relevant migration of the Metha™ or Nanos™ prostheses during postoperative follow-up. After 12.3 months, the DEXA scans showed small but significant differences of bone mineral density in Gruen zones 1 (minus ~8 %) and 6 (plus ~9 %) for the Metha™ and in Gruen zone 1 (minus ~14 %) for the Nanos™ (paired t test). Visual analog scale (VAS) and Harris Hip Score (HHS) improved significantly for both implants (Nanos™/Metha™ 12.3 months postoperatively HSS 96.5/96.2; VAS 0.7/0.8, respectively). COR or offset did not change significantly after surgery.ConclusionsNeither implant showed signs of impaired osseointegration. DEXA demonstrated proximally located load transfer with only moderate proximal stress shielding.Level of evidenceII.

In patients with conductive hearing loss caused by middle ear disorders or atresia of the ear canal, a Bonebridge implantation can improve hearing by providing vibratory input to the temporal bone. The expected results are improved puretone thresholds and speech recognition. In the European Union, approval of the Bonebridge implantation was recently extended to children. We evaluated the functional outcome of a Bonebridge implantation for eight adults and three children. We found significant improvement in the puretone thresholds, with improvement in the air-bone gap. Speech recognition after surgery was significantly higher than in the best-aided situation before surgery. The Bonebridge significantly improved speech recognition in noisy environments and sound localization. In situations relevant to daily life, hearing deficits were nearly completely restored with the Bonebridge implantation in both adults and children.