A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cutaneous complications in osseointegrated implants: comparison between classic and tissue preservation techniques. | LitMetric

Introduction And Objectives: The standard surgical technique for osseointegrated hearing aids involves removing a large area of subcutaneous tissue down to the periosteum. Recently, the industry has designed a new range of abutment lengths for less invasive surgery with soft tissue preservation. This study compared and evaluated the complications in the standard and the tissue preservation techniques.

Material And Methods: This was a prospective study including 29 adult patients that underwent single-stage osseointegrated hearing aids insertion between February 2009 and February 2013. We performed the standard technique in 14 patients, and the tissue preservation technique in 15. Soft tissue complications were graded according to the Holgers classification.

Results: No patient required removal of implant or revision surgery. Although the Holgers grade was always worse in the standard technique (reaction score of 3 or higher was 28% versus 7% at a month), the complication rate was not statistically significant between the 2 groups at any postoperative time a week (p=0.233), a month (p=0.470) and a year (p=0.401).

Conclusion: In our experience the tissue preservation technique, without soft tissue reduction, is the procedure of choice for bone anchored implant surgery. The preservation technique is easier, faster and possible with local anaesthesia and has similar postoperative outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2014.07.003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tissue preservation
20
soft tissue
12
preservation technique
12
tissue
8
osseointegrated hearing
8
hearing aids
8
standard technique
8
technique soft
8
preservation
6
technique
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!