Retrospective analysis of skin complications related to bone-anchored hearing aid implant: association with surgical technique, quality of life, and audiological benefit

Peñaranda, Daniel; García, Juan Manuel Méjica; Aparicio, Maria Leonor; Montes, Felipe; Barón, Clemencia; Jiménez, Roberto C.; Peñaranda, Augusto

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.03.012

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clinical reports of long followup durations indicated the highest success rates of implants inserted in the mastoid region and inferior nasal bone, while lower success rates were reported for inferior orbital rims and irradiated bone. 26 The skin condition around the implant is affected by the implants' coverage duration and perspiration at the defect side. Most patients take good care of their implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillofacial prosthetics and digital technologies: Cross‐sectional study of healthcare service provision, patient attitudes, and opinions

Hatamleh¹,

Hatamlah

Nuseir

2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeDigital technologies are continuously improving the accuracy and quality of maxillofacial prosthetics, but their impact on patients remains unclear. This cross‐sectional study aimed to analyze the impact of facial prosthetics service provision, patients’ perception, and digital technology on prostheses construction.Materials and MethodsAll patients who presented for evaluation and management of facial defects between January 2021 and December 2021 at the ENT clinic were eligible for study enrollment. Patients requiring prosthetic reconstruction of their missing facial parts were included in the study. Forty‐five questionnaires were delivered, inquiring about the patients’ prosthetic demographics, prosthesis manufacture using 3D technologies, and their perceptions and attitudes.ResultsA total of 37 patients responded (29 males, eight females; mean age 20.50 years). The congenital cause was the highest among other causes (p = 0.001) with auricular defects being the highest (p = 0.001). A total of 38 prostheses were constructed and 17 prostheses were retained by 36 craniofacial implants (p = 0.014). The auricular and orbital implants success rates were 97% and 25%, respectively. The implant locations were digitally planned pre‐operatively. Digital 3D technologies of defect capture, data designing, and 3D modeling were used and perceived as helpful and comfortable (p = 0.001). Patients perceived their prosthesis as easy to handle, suited them, and they felt confident with it (p = 0.001). They wore it for more than 12 h daily (p = 0.001). They were not worried that it would be noticed, and found it comfortable and stable during various activities (p = 0.001). Implant‐retained prosthesis patients were more satisfied with it, and found it easy to handle and stable (p = 0.001).ConclusionsCongenital defects are the main cause of facial defects in the study country. The overall acceptance of maxillofacial prostheses was good, showing high patient perception and satisfaction. Ocular and implant‐retained silicone prostheses are better handled, more stable, and the latter is more satisfying than traditional adhesive prostheses. Digital technologies save time and effort invested in manufacturing facial prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillofacial prosthetics and digital technologies: Cross‐sectional study of healthcare service provision, patient attitudes, and opinions

Hatamleh¹,

Hatamlah

Nuseir

2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, even individuals with skin complications did not report any impact on the audiological benefit but reported satisfaction with the use of the devices. 4 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, even individuals with skin complications did not report any impact on the audiological benefit but reported satisfaction with the use of the devices. 4 Both guidance on care and hygiene with the abutment site and advice on the functioning, handling and maintenance of the device's external component for the patient and their families are essential for a successful fitting. Although all patients were instructed about the handling and hygiene of the abutment, the highest recurrence rates may be due to the tropical climate of Brazil.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the literature shows good results with BAHDs, the technology is still very recent and has been undergoing several innovations and interventions. The many complications reported, such as those related to pain, infections, and osseointegration failure, 3 do not always affect the audiological benefit, 4 but they have a direct impact on treatment adherence. 5 Furthermore, there are few studies conducted in large tropical countries, such as Brazil, where there are several variables involving climate and habits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment Protocol for Candidates for Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices

Ueda

Soares

Jardim

et al. 2022

Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The technology regarding bone-anchored hearing devices has been advancing. Nevertheless, complications are still often reported, which can impair treatment adherence and lead to discontinuation of use. There is a lack of studies conducted in tropical countries, where complications can be even greater, as well as standardized protocols for selection, indication and evaluation. Objective To characterize implanted patients from a Brazilian public institution and describe the medical and audiological assessment protocols to which they were submitted during the selection process and in the follow-up after surgery. Method An observational, cross-sectional study evaluating the medical records of patients with hearing loss and ear malformations and describing the care protocol through which they were treated. Results The medical records of 15 patients were reviewed: 6 received transcutaneous implants, and 9, percutaneous implants; 9 patients reported some type of skin lesion, 2 reported pain on the follow-up visit, and 3 had osseointegration failure. The time between surgery and activation ranged from 2 to 9 months. The median scores on the sentences, Sentences in Noise and Monosyllable tests were 100%, 60% and 80%, respectively. Conclusion It was possible to characterize the patients who received implants at the institution. The patients performed well in silence and had greater difficulty in noise. Even patients who had complications did not complain about the audibility and sound quality. It is essential to develop a model and to standardize the assessment and follow-up methods aimed at the benefit of users of bone-anchored hearing devices, as well as to enable the technico-scientific development in this field.

show abstract

“…Skin complications were divided into minor (Grade 1 and 2) and major (Grade 3 and 4) complications. 12 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical and audiological results of bone-anchored hearing aids: comparison of two surgical techniques

Amaral¹,

Santos²,

Danieli³

et al. 2022

Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrospective analysis of skin complications related to bone-anchored hearing aid implant: association with surgical technique, quality of life, and audiological benefit

Abstract: Despite the high frequency, skin complications did not seem to affect quality of life or subjective audiological benefits of patients with bone-anchored hearing aids.

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

Maxillofacial prosthetics and digital technologies: Cross‐sectional study of healthcare service provision, patient attitudes, and opinions

Maxillofacial prosthetics and digital technologies: Cross‐sectional study of healthcare service provision, patient attitudes, and opinions

Assessment Protocol for Candidates for Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices

Surgical and audiological results of bone-anchored hearing aids: comparison of two surgical techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About