RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Not long after the introduction of osseointegrated implants outside the oral cavity, auricular prostheses are retrained on osseointegrated implants. New insights have been gained with the next-generation percutaneous osseointegrated titanium implants for bone conduction hearing since its introduction in 2010. As a result, the same technology was introduced in the Vistafix® system (VXI implant) to retain auricular prostheses. The aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical procedure, clinical outcome, and satisfaction of the patient of osseointegration-retained auricular prosthesis using VXI implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 11 patients who received an auricular prosthesis using VXI implants between December 2012 and November 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. The patient's medical files were reviewed to assess clinical complications and the necessity for revision surgery. The subjective outcome was measured using the Glasgow benefit inventory (GBI). RESULTS: In total, 31 implants were placed in 11 patients. None of these implants were lost nor revision surgery needed. An adverse skin reaction was observed in 13.0% of the implants and in 27.2% of the patients, adequately treated with an antibiotic ointment. The average follow-up time was 2 years and 7 months. The GBI displayed a positive score in every patient. CONCLUSIONS: The VXI implants used are a safe and reliable treatment option for retaining auricular prostheses in patients with an absent auricle. Patients were satisfied with their auricular prosthesis and showed benefit in quality of life. Studies with larger numbers and preferably a prospective character are needed to draw statistically significant conclusions.
Asunto(s)
Microtia Congénita/cirugía , Pabellón Auricular , Deformidades Adquiridas del Oído/cirugía , Oseointegración , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Prótesis e Implantes , Implantación de Prótesis , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Anciano , Conducción Ósea , Prótesis Anclada al Hueso , Microtia Congénita/epidemiología , Pabellón Auricular/patología , Pabellón Auricular/cirugía , Deformidades Adquiridas del Oído/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Países Bajos , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/terapia , Estudios Prospectivos , Diseño de Prótesis , Implantación de Prótesis/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis/instrumentación , Implantación de Prótesis/métodos , Reoperación/métodos , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , TitanioRESUMEN
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Maxillofacial prostheses, especially those supported by endosseous implants, are regarded as a viable, secure treatment for the reconstruction of facial defects to restore quality of life. The long-term quality of life of patients treated with facial prostheses with different retentive systems is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the long-term quality of life of patients treated with facial prostheses with different retentive systems over a 14-year period at a Dutch oral and maxillofacial surgery unit. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 66 patients with facial prostheses were inventoried and categorized based on anatomic location and type of retention. A 62-item questionnaire was designed to survey the daily prosthetic use, care, quality, durability, longevity, and reliability of retention. Furthermore, issues relating to general satisfaction, self-image, and socialization frequency were addressed. RESULTS: Completed validated questionnaires were returned by 52 patients. Of the prosthetic replacements, 23% (n=12) were orbital, 33% (n=17) nasal, and 44% (n=23) auricular prostheses. The survey showed that a prosthetic reconstruction led to high satisfaction scores with regard to wearing comfort, anatomic fit, color, and anatomic form. A significant difference was shown for implant-retained facial prostheses, which provided enhanced retention and increased ease of placement and removal (Fisher exact test P=.01 and P=.04). Patients with nasal prostheses were less satisfied with the junction of their prostheses to the surrounding soft tissue and more aware of others noticing their prosthetic rehabilitation. Patients with auricular defects were less embarrassed (P=.01) by their prostheses. Although auricular prostheses were less frequently cleaned (P=.01), no significant difference was found in minor soft tissue complications between different anatomic locations and the various retentive systems. CONCLUSIONS: Implant-retained prostheses have advantages over adhesive-retained prostheses in terms of ease of handling. However, improvements in prosthetic material properties, including color stability and durability, are needed to increase the longevity of facial prostheses.