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
Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery: linear incision technique with tissue preservation versus linear incision technique with tissue reduction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van der Stee E H H, Strijbos R M, Bom S J H, Hol M K S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To 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 DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: All 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.
RESULTS: A 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).
CONCLUSION: LITT-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.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: All 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.
RESULTS: A 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).
CONCLUSION: LITT-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.