Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Study protocol

Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery compared to the linear incision technique without soft tissue reduction for bone conduction hearing implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Tim G. A. Calon, Marc van Hoof, Herbert van den Berge, Arthur J. G. de Bruijn, Joost van Tongeren, Janny R. Hof, Jan Wouter Brunings, Sofia Jonhede, Lucien J. C. Anteunis, Miranda Janssen, Manuela A. Joore, Marcus Holmberg, Martin L. Johansson, Robert J. Stokroos

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Over the last years, less invasive surgical techniques with soft tissue preservation for bone conduction hearing implants (BCHI) have been introduced such as the linear incision technique combined with a punch. Results using this technique seem favorable in terms of rate of peri-abutment dermatitis (PAD), esthetics, and preservation of skin sensibility. Recently, a new standardized surgical technique for BCHI placement, the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) technique has been developed by Oticon Medical AB (Askim, Sweden). This technique aims to standardize surgery by using a novel surgical instrumentation kit and minimize soft tissue trauma.

Methods

A multicenter randomized controlled trial is designed to compare the MIPS technique to the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation. The primary investigation center is Maastricht University Medical Center. Sixty-two participants will be included with a 2-year follow-up period. Parameters are introduced to quantify factors such as loss of skin sensibility, dehiscence of the skin next to the abutment, skin overgrowth, and cosmetic results. A new type of sampling method is incorporated to aid in the estimation of complications. To gain further understanding of PAD, swabs and skin biopsies are collected during follow-up visits for evaluation of the bacterial profile and inflammatory cytokine expression.
The primary objective of the study is to compare the incidence of PAD during the first 3 months after BCHI placement. Secondary objectives include the assessment of parameters related to surgery, wound healing, pain, loss of sensibility of the skin around the implant, implant extrusion rate, implant stability measurements, dehiscence of the skin next to the abutment, and esthetic appeal. Tertiary objectives include assessment of other factors related to PAD and a health economic evaluation.

Discussion

This is the first trial to compare the recently developed MIPS technique to the linear incision technique with soft tissue preservation for BCHI surgery. Newly introduced parameters and sampling method will aid in the prediction of results and complications after BCHI placement.

Trial registration

Registered at the CCMO register in the Netherlands on 24 November 2014: NL50072.​068.​14. Retrospectively registered on 21 April 2015 at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02438618. This trial is sponsored by Oticon Medical AB.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Tjellström A, Lindström J, Hallén O, Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI. Osseointegrated titanium implants in the temporal bone. A clinical study on bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol. 1981;2:304–10.PubMed
3.
Stenfelt S, Goode RL. Bone-conducted sound: physiological and clinical aspects. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26:1245–61.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Crowson MG, Tucci DL. Mini review of the cost-effectiveness of unilateral osseointegrated implants in adults: possibly cost-effective for the correct indication. Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21:69–71.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Monksfield P, Jowett S, Reid A, Proops D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the bone-anchored hearing device. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:1192–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Verkerk MA, Busschbach JJ, Karssing ED. Health-related quality of life research and the capability approach of Amartya Sen. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:49–55.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zawawi F, Kabbach G, Lallemand M, Daniel SJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: why do some patients refuse it? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:232–4.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Siau D, Dhillon B, Andrews R, Green KMJ. Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them? J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129:321–5.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Tjellström A. The father of Osseointegration and the godfather of the BAHA: Professor Per-Ingvar Brånemark, Göteborg Sweden has passed away in his 86th year. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272:779–80.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kiringoda R, Lustig LR. A meta-analysis of the complications associated with osseointegrated hearing aids. Otol Neurotol. 2013;34:790–4.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Holgers KM, Tjellström A, Bjursten LM, Erlandsson BE. Soft tissue reactions around percutaneuous implants: a clinical study of soft tissue conditions around skin-penetrating titanuium implants for bone-anchored hearing aids. Otol Neurotol. 1988;9:56–63.
12.
Tjellström A. Percutaneous implants in clinical practice. CRC Crit Rev Biocompat. 1985;1:205–28.
13.
Holt BM, Bachus KN, Beck JP, Bloebaum RD, Jeyapalina S. Immediate post-implantation skin immobilization decreases skin regression around percutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic implant systems. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101:2075–82.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Anderson JM, Rodriquez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20:86–100.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Monksfield P, Chapple ILC, Matthews JB, Grant MM, Addison O, Reid AP, et al. Biofilm formation on bone-anchored hearing aids. J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125:1125–30.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Bjarnsholt T. The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS. 2013;121(s136):1–58.CrossRef
17.
Singam S, Williams R, Saxby C, Houlihan FP. Percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implant surgery without soft-tissue reduction: up to 42 months of follow-up. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35:1596–600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Mylanus EAM, Johansson CB, Cremers CWRJ. Craniofacial titanium implants and chronic pain: histologic findings. Otol Neurotol. 2002;23:920–5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hobson JC, Roper AJ, Andrew R, Rothera MP, Hill P, Green KM. Complications of bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. J Laryngol Otol. 2010;124:132–6.CrossRefPubMed
20.
van de Berg R, Stokroos RJ, Hof JR, Chenault MN. Bone-anchored hearing aid: a comparison of surgical techniques. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31:129–35.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Hagr A. BAHA: bone-anchored hearing aid. Int J Health Sci. 2007;1:265–76.
22.
den Besten CA, Bosman AJ, Nelissen RC, Mylanus EAM, Hol MK. Controlled clinical trial on bone-anchored hearing implants and a surgical technique with soft tissue preservation. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37:504–12.CrossRef
23.
Hultcrantz M, Lanis A. A five-year follow-up on the osseointegration of bone-anchored hearing device implantation without tissue reduction. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35:1480–5.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hultcrantz M. Outcome of the bone-anchored hearing aid procedure without skin thinning: a prospective clinical trial. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:1134–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Verheij E, Bezdjian A, Grolman W, Thomeer HG. A systematic review on complications of tissue preservation surgical techniques in percutaneous bone conduction hearing devices. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37:829–37.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Johansson M, Holmberg M. Design and clinical evaluation of MIPS – a new perspective on tissue preservation. White Pap. Oticon Medical, Askim, Sweden, 2015 October, Rep. No. M524252. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.3624.7762.
27.
Dumon T, Medina M, Sperling NM. Punch and drill: implantation of bone anchored hearing device through a minimal skin punch incision versus implantation with dermatome and soft tissue reduction. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;125:199–206.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gordon SA, Coelho DH. Minimally invasive surgery for osseointegrated auditory implants: a comparison of linear versus punch techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;152:1089–93.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Goldman RA, Georgolios A, Shaia WT. The punch method for bone-anchored hearing aid placement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148:878–80.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Tysome JR, Hill-Feltham P, Hodgetts WE, McKinnon BJ, Monksfield P, Sockalingham R, et al. The Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network: an international initiative to develop core sets of patient-centred outcome measures to assess interventions for hearing loss. Clin Otolaryngol. 2015;40(6):512–5.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, Fenton M. Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:249–52.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Barker F, MacKenzie E, Elliott L, de Lusignan S. Outcome measurement in adult auditory rehabilitation: a scoping review of measures used in randomized controlled trials. Ear Hear. 2015;36:567–73.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Høgsbro M, Agger A, Johansen LV. Successful loading of a bone-anchored hearing implant at two weeks after surgery: randomized trial of two surgical methods and detailed stability measurements. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36:e51–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Nelissen RC, Stalfors J, de Wolf MJ, Flynn MC, Wigren S, Eeg-Olofsson M, et al. Long-term stability, survival, and tolerability of a novel osseointegrated implant for bone conduction hearing: 3-year data from a multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical investigation. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35:1486–91.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Nelissen RC, den Besten CA, Mylanus EAM, Hol MK. Stability, survival, and tolerability of a 4.5-mm-wide bone-anchored hearing implant: 6-month data from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:105–11.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Dun CA, de Wolf MJ, Hol MK, Wigren S, Eeg-Olofsson M, Green K, et al. Stability, survival, and tolerability of a novel baha implant system: six-month data from a multicenter clinical investigation. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:1001–7.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, Hróbjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Doré CJ. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(4):373.PubMedCentral
39.
Faber HT, Dun CA, Nelissen RC, Mylanus EAM, Cremers CW, Hol MK. Bone-anchored hearing implant loading at 3 weeks: stability and tolerability after 6 months. Otol Neurotol. 2013;34:104–10.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Sandby-Møller J, Poulsen T, Wulf HC. Epidermal thickness at different body sites: relationship to age, gender, pigmentation, blood content, skin type and smoking habits. Acta Derm Venereol. 2003;83:410–3.CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
43.
44.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:167–76.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Sen A. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
48.
Al-Janabi H, Peters TJ, Brazier J, Bryan S, Flynn TN, Clemens S, et al. An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-a capability measure. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1831–40.CrossRefPubMed
49.
van Hoof M, Jeuring SF, Stokroos RJ, Joore MA. A new perspective on measuring quality of life using the capability approach. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2015;159:A9234.PubMed
50.
Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—an ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2015;18:161–72.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Budding AE, Grasman ME, Lin F, Bogaards JA, Soeltan-Kaersenhout DJ, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, et al. IS-pro: high-throughput molecular fingerprinting of the intestinal microbiota. FASEB J. 2010;24:4556–64.CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
Lerman J. Study design in clinical research: sample size estimation and power analysis. Can J Anaesth. 1996;43:184–91.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Law I, Widdows H. Conceptualising health: insights from the capability approach. Heal Care Anal. 2008;16:303–14.CrossRef
55.
Ruger JP. Health capability: conceptualization and operationalization. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:41–9.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM, Eisen SV, Ni P, Bogusz K, Meterko M, McDonough CM, Chan L, Brandt DE, Rasch EK. Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for social security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:1645–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Faber HT, Nelissen RC, Kramer SE, Cremers CW, Snik AF, Hol MK. Bone-anchored hearing implants in single-sided deafness patients: long-term use and satisfaction by gender. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:2790–5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery compared to the linear incision technique without soft tissue reduction for bone conduction hearing implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Authors
Tim G. A. Calon
Marc van Hoof
Herbert van den Berge
Arthur J. G. de Bruijn
Joost van Tongeren
Janny R. Hof
Jan Wouter Brunings
Sofia Jonhede
Lucien J. C. Anteunis
Miranda Janssen
Manuela A. Joore
Marcus Holmberg
Martin L. Johansson
Robert J. Stokroos
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1662-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Evolving methods to combine cognitive and physical training for individuals with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol for a randomized controlled study

Study protocol

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemo-radiation for preoperative enlarged lateral nodes in advanced low rectal cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research

Recruitment of older adults with type 2 diabetes into a community-based exercise and nutrition randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Exercise prior to assisted fertilization in overweight and obese women (FertilEX): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Reviewer acknowledgement

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Trials in 2015

Study protocol

Prostate cancer - evidence of exercise and nutrition trial (PrEvENT): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial