Servicio de Otorrinolaringología, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Servicio de Otorrinolaringología, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed). 2024 Jul-Aug;75(4):210-216. doi: 10.1016/j.otoeng.2023.10.010. Epub 2024 Mar 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
多年来,骨整合种植体的手术经历了不同的改良,旨在获得更好的效果并简化手术技术。目前,最常用的技术是线性切口,保留组织并放置基台和种植体。该技术的长期成功为所谓的微创外科方法(MIPS)的发展提供了基础。本研究比较了经典线性切口技术与 MIPS 技术的短期、中期和长期结果。
对 2016 年 2 月至 2020 年 2 月期间植入骨整合种植体的患者进行前瞻性研究。共进行了 59 例手术,其中 32 例采用线性切口保留组织技术,27 例采用 MIPS 技术。术后 1 周、1 个月和 1 年评估结果。
术后 1 周,两组间存在统计学显著差异。80%的 MIPS 患者的 Holgers 分级为 0-1,而线性技术患者为 35%(p=0.001)。术后 1 个月(p=0.457)和 1 年(p=0.228)时无统计学差异。记录到 1 例 MIPS 技术术后 1 个月出现 4 级并发症,导致种植体脱出。1 例种植体脱出后使用相同的 MIPS 技术重新植入 2 个月后取得良好效果。我们还发现,MIPS 技术的手术时间更短,术后患者的不适感也更小。
根据我们的经验,MIPS 技术是 Ponto 模型骨整合种植体手术的首选技术,因为它更简单、更快,在术后即刻阶段问题更少,且具有相似的长期术后结果。