Comparison of the MIPS technique versus linear incision with tissue preservation in osseointegrated implants in the Ponto model®.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The surgery of osseointegrated implants has undergone different modifications over the years with the aim of achieving better results and facilitating the surgical technique. Today the most commonly used technique is the linear incision with tissue preservation and placement of the abutment and implant. The long-term success of this technique has served as the basis for the development of the so-called minimally invasive surgical approach (MIPS). This study compares the short-, medium- and long-term results between the classic linear incision technique and the MIPS technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on patients who had an osseointegrated implant placed between February 2016 and February 2020. A total of 59 surgeries were performed, 32 surgeries according to the linear incision technique with tissue preservation and 27 with MIPS technique. Outcomes were evaluated at one week, one month and one year. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were achieved between the 2 groups at one week after surgery. Eighty per cent of the MIPS patients had Holgers grades 0-1 compared to 35% of the linear technique patients (p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed at one month (p = 0.457) and one year (p = 0.228). One case with grade 4 was recorded which resulted in implant extrusion one month after surgery with the MIPS technique. A new osseointegrated implant was placed 2 months after the fall using the same MIPS technique with good results. We were also able to verify that the duration of surgery was much shorter with the MIPS technique and better tolerated in terms of postoperative discomfort by the patient. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the MIPS technique is the technique of choice for surgery of osseointegrated Ponto model implants as it is simpler, faster and presents fewer problems in the immediate postoperative period, with similar long-term postoperative results.

Ototoxicity in cancer survivors: Experience and proposal of a surveillance protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Ototoxicity occurs in different percentages in patients after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy or cranial radiation therapy. The aim of this study was to present our experience in ototoxicity monitoring. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review was made of the registry of paediatric cancer patients referred to the Children's Hearing Loss Unit from 1999 to 2019. RESULTS: Of the 46 patients referred to this unit, 41 had received platinum as part of their treatment, 17 patients underwent neurosurgery, and 18 patients received cranial radiation therapy. An anamnesis and otoscopy were performed on all of them, and the monitoring was carried out with tone-verbal audiometry and/or distortion products. Hearing loss was observed in eight patients (21.05% of patients referred for audiological follow-up) as a consequence of the treatment. It was impossible to determine the audiological situation in eight patients at the end of treatment. Hearing aid adaption was necessary in two patients. In coordination with Paediatric Oncology, a change from cisplatin to carboplatin due to bilateral grade two ototoxicity was considered appropriate during treatment in one patient. CONCLUSION: Adequate coordination with Paediatric Oncology is essential to carry out active surveillance for ototoxicity and to modify, if possible, the dosage or type of chemotherapy in case hearing is affected. In our experience, and following current recommendations, a pre-treatment assessment is usually performed, as well as monitoring during treatment, at the end of treatment, and annually thereafter due to the risk of a later development of hearing loss.