Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29846791›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 Surgery2018

Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction.

E H H van der Stee, R M Strijbos, S J H Bom, M K S Hol

Open access · greenAbstract 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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Long-Term Clinical Outcomes for Bone-Anchored Hearing Implants: 3-Year Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery and the Linear Incision Technique With Tissue Preservation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Frontiers in surgery · 2022
    Article
  5. Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E H H van der SteeDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Deventer Hospital, Nico Bolkesteinlaan 75, 7416 SE, Deventer, The Netherlands.
R M StrijbosDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6525 EX, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
S J H BomDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Deventer Hospital, Nico Bolkesteinlaan 75, 7416 SE, Deventer, The Netherlands. s.bom@dz.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0174-5218
M K S HolDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 15, 6525 EX, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Deventer Ziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify differences in skin thickening and soft tissue reactions between the linear incision technique with tissue reduction (LITT-R) and the linear incision technique with tissue preservation (LITT-P). STUDY

designRetrospective cohort study.

methodsAll adult patients who underwent the LITT-R or LITT-P between August 2005 and December 2016 at a large general teaching hospital with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included.

resultsA total of 83 implants were included using the LITT-R with a median follow-up of 74.0 months. In the LITT-P cohort 58 implants were included with a median follow-up of 16.5 months. Skin thickening was seen in seven implants (8.4%) in LITT-R cohort and 11 implants (19.0%) in the LITT-P cohort in the first 2 years of follow-up (p = 0.024). Skin thickening in need of treatment was registered in 5 (6.0%), respectively, 6 (10.3%) implants (p = 0.100). Moreover, treatment was successful in all cases. A soft tissue reaction (Holgers ≥ 1) was noticed in 28 (33.7%) implants in the LITT-R group compared to 16 implants (27.6%) in the LITT-P group (p = 0.679). An adverse soft tissue reaction (Holgers ≥ 2) was registered in 16 (19.2%), respectively, 2 (3.4%) implants. This difference was significant (p = 0.040).

conclusionLITT-P has a significantly higher rate of skin thickening and LITT-R has a significantly higher proportion of adverse soft tissue reactions. Nevertheless, combined with the advantages of LITT-P described in other studies, this can be advocated as the preferred technique.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsSuture AnchorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHearing LossHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis ImplantationRetrospective StudiesSkinSurgical Wound DehiscenceBahaBone conduction hearingHearing lossSoft tissue reactionsTissue preservationTissue reduction

Identifiers

PMID29846791
OpenAlexW2807609961

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.