ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2025
Feasibility of Minimal Inverted-J Incision for Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Attract Implantation.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a minimal inverted-J incision for bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) Attract implantation. Classical large incisions often result in prolonged surgical time and wound-related complications. A linear incision can lead to an incision scar overlapping the implanted magnet, resulting in wound complications, magnet instability, and problems with external device attachment. Our novel incision method overcomes the limitations of both incision methods. SUBJECTS AND
methodsWe assessed the outcomes of patients who underwent BAHA Attract implantation using a minimal inverted-J incision, which was designed to provide adequate exposure while avoiding excessive incision. The total surgery duration, wound healing, and implant stability were evaluated based on hearing outcomes and compared with those of patients who underwent a classical incision.
resultsThe minimal inverted-J incision and classical incision groups demonstrated no significant differences in surgical time (32.7±6.3 min vs. 36.9±5.4 min, p=0.056), postoperative major wound complications (6.3% vs. 20%, p=0.176), and hearing outcomes (51.8±31.1 dB vs. 49.3±27.8 dB, p=0.585); however, the trends consistently showed that the minimal inverted-J incision group was either superior or comparable to the other groups.
conclusionsOur novel incision technique for BAHA Attract implantation addresses the limitations associated with both the classical and minimal linear incision approaches.
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.