Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18853170›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2009

Histologic and morphologic evaluation of explanted bone anchors from bone-anchored hearing aids.

Robert Mlynski, Eva Goldberg, Joerg Ebmeyer, Matthias Scheich, Stefan Gattenlöhner, Konrad Schwager, Rudolf Hagen, Wafaa Shehata-Dieler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pain and infection are the primary reasons for elective retrieval of bone-anchored implants.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Robert MlynskiDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery, University of Wuerzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 11, 97080, Würzburg, Germany. robert.mlynski@mail.uni-wuerzburg.de
Eva Goldberg
Joerg Ebmeyer
Matthias Scheich
Stefan Gattenlöhner
Konrad Schwager
Rudolf Hagen
Wafaa Shehata-Dieler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone-anchored hearing aids are a standard option in rehabilitation of patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss, and also CROS fitting. However, the skin-penetrating bone anchor repeatedly gives reason for discussion about the risk of infection of surrounding tissues as a major cause of malfunction. In the present study, explanted bone anchors with surrounding bone and soft tissue were examined and compared with the morphology of lost implants. The anchors originated from five patients. Two needed explantation due to deafness with the need of cochlea implantation. A third patient underwent explantation due to meningeal irritation by the bone anchor. Another patient lost the implant due to mechanical stress shortly after implantation. The last implant was lost in a child without apparent reason. All implants were clinically free of infection and had been stable for a median implantation period of 12 months. During the explantation procedure, the fixtures were recovered together with the attached soft tissue and bone. The specimens were examined by light microscopy or scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Sectioning for light microscopy was performed with a diamond-coated saw microtome. Histopathologic examination of the surrounding skin and subcutaneous soft tissue showed slight inflammation in one case only. The bone was regularly vital, presenting no signs of inflammation. The threads of the fixtures were filled with bone, with particularly strong attachment to the flank of traction. The SEM investigation exposed the ultrastructural interaction of bone with the implant surface. Filiform- and podocyte-like processes of osteocytes attach to the implant; lost implants did not reflect these features. Implant integration involves both osseointegration as well as soft tissue integration. Titanium oxide as the active implant surface promotes this integration even in unstable implants. The morphologic analysis exposed structural areas of the implant with weak bone-to-metal contact. Optimized implant design with modified surface and threads may additionally improve osseointegration of hearing aid bone anchors.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsProsthesis ImplantationSuture AnchorsAdolescentChild, PreschoolFemaleHearing Loss, ConductiveHearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-SensorineuralHumansMaleMicroscopy, ElectronMiddle AgedOsseointegrationProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.