Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27829464›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery compared to the linear incision technique without soft tissue reduction for bone conduction hearing implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Tim G A Calon, Marc van Hoof, Herbert van den Berge, Arthur J G de Bruijn, Joost van Tongeren, Janny R Hof, Jan Wouter Brunings, Sofia Jonhede, Lucien J C Anteunis, Miranda Janssen and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02438618 (Minimally Invasive Surgery for Ponto Bone Anchored Hearing Implants), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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.

NCT02438618 nacompletednot on this map

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Ponto Bone Anchored Hearing Implants

TypeinterventionalSponsorOticon MedicalRan2014 to 2018Enrolled64ConditionsConductive Hearing Loss, Unilateral Partial Deafness, Mixed Conductive-sensorineural Hearing LossArmsSurgery for Ponto bone anchored hearing aids
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery Versus the Linear Incision Technique With Soft Tissue Preservation for Bone Conduction Hearing Implants: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2018
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Frontiers in surgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Wide diameter bone-anchored hearing system implants: a comparison of long-term follow-up data between tissue reduction and tissue preservation techniques.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 · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Long term follow-up demonstrating stability and patient satisfaction of minimally invasive punch technique for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2018
    Article
  10. Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction.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 · 2018
    Article
  11. Bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: our experience with linear incision and punch techniques.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2018
    Article
  12. Direct cost comparison of minimally invasive punch technique versus traditional approaches for percutaneous bone anchored hearing devices.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2017
    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

14 authors.

Tim G A CalonDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. tim.calon@mumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6844-1692
Marc van HoofDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Herbert van den BergeDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Arthur J G de BruijnDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, ZiekenhuisGroep Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands.
Joost van TongerenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Janny R HofDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jan Wouter BruningsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sofia JonhedeOticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden.
Lucien J C AnteunisDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Miranda JanssenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Manuela A JooreDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marcus HolmbergOticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden.
Martin L JohanssonOticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden.
Robert J StokroosDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last years, less invasive surgical techniques with soft tissue preservation for bone conduction hearing implants (BCHI) have been introduced such as the linear incision technique combined with a punch. Results using this technique seem favorable in terms of rate of peri-abutment dermatitis (PAD), esthetics, and preservation of skin sensibility. Recently, a new standardized surgical technique for BCHI placement, the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique has been developed by Oticon Medical AB (Askim, Sweden). This technique aims to standardize surgery by using a novel surgical instrumentation kit and minimize soft tissue trauma.

methodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial is designed to compare the MIPS technique to the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation. The primary investigation center is Maastricht University Medical Center. Sixty-two participants will be included with a 2-year follow-up period. Parameters are introduced to quantify factors such as loss of skin sensibility, dehiscence of the skin next to the abutment, skin overgrowth, and cosmetic results. A new type of sampling method is incorporated to aid in the estimation of complications. To gain further understanding of PAD, swabs and skin biopsies are collected during follow-up visits for evaluation of the bacterial profile and inflammatory cytokine expression. The primary objective of the study is to compare the incidence of PAD during the first 3 months after BCHI placement. Secondary objectives include the assessment of parameters related to surgery, wound healing, pain, loss of sensibility of the skin around the implant, implant extrusion rate, implant stability measurements, dehiscence of the skin next to the abutment, and esthetic appeal. Tertiary objectives include assessment of other factors related to PAD and a health economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to compare the recently developed MIPS technique to the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation for BCHI surgery. Newly introduced parameters and sampling method will aid in the prediction of results and complications after BCHI placement.

trial registrationRegistered at the CCMO register in the Netherlands on 24 November 2014: NL50072.068.14 . Retrospectively registered on 21 April 2015 at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02438618 . This trial is sponsored by Oticon Medical AB.

Indexed as

Bone ConductionHearing AidsClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisDermatitisEquipment DesignHealth Care CostsHearing LossHumansNetherlandsOtologic Surgical ProceduresPatient SatisfactionPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesResearch DesignRisk FactorsSurgical Wound DehiscenceBAHABone conduction device (BCD)Bone conduction hearing implant (BCHI)MIPSRandomized Controlled Trial (RCT)Soft tissue preservation

Identifiers

PMID27829464
PMCPMC5103483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.