ArticleActa otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale2021
Comparison between linear incision and punch techniques for bone anchored hearing aid surgery.
Article in Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Two Surgical Techniques for Implantation of the PontoJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive surgery as a new clinical standard for bone anchored hearing implants-real-world data from 10 years of follow-up and 228 surgeries.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate mean surgical time, incidence of soft tissue reactions, implant survival and intraoperative complications in both minimally invasive ponto surgery (MIPS) and the linear incision with tissue preservation technique (LT).
methodsA retrospective review was carried out on 48 bone anchored hearing system (BAHS) patients between 2014 and 2019: 13 patients had undergone LT and formed one group, while 35 patients had undergone MIPS and formed the second group. Mean surgical time, intraoperative complications, implant loss and skin reaction were assessed at each post-operative examination. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis.
resultsThe difference in the mean surgical time of 15 mins for MIPS and 36 mins for LT was statistically significant. No intraoperative complications were reported and implant survival was 100% in both groups. The incidence of adverse skin reactions was 7.7% for the LT group and 0% for the MIPS group at first follow-up examination.
conclusionsSurgical mean time is shorter for MIPS, making this procedure more suitable for local anaesthesia and more cost effective. Moreover, both LT and MIPS demonstrate good surgical outcomes in terms of skin reactions according to Holgers score and equally excellent implant survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.