Browse > Article

Comparison of Complications in Direct and Indirect Osseointegration of Prosthetic Auricular Reconstruction  

Park, Mu Shik (Deparment of Plasic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keimyung University School of Medicine)
Han, Ki Hwan (Deparment of Plasic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keimyung University School of Medicine)
Kim, Jun Hyung (Deparment of Plasic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keimyung University School of Medicine)
Publication Information
Archives of Plastic Surgery / v.32, no.3, 2005 , pp. 293-298 More about this Journal
Abstract
Osseointegrated prosthetic auricular reconstruction can be classified as either direct or indirect. In the $Br{\aa}nemark $ system of direct osseointegration, implants are placed into the mastoid process of the temporal bone. In the Epitec system of indirect osseointegration, implants are inserted into a three-dimensional carrier plate that is fixed to the mastoid by means of screws. We experienced forty-four cases using the indirect system and seventeen cases using the direct system. We compared with two systems by complications, such as skin reaction, implant loosening, implant loss. There were no specific differences in the skin reaction around the implants and abutments in relation to age or system used. The degree of skin reaction was different according to the conditions around the implant: in cases of virgin microtia, a skin flap was used to cover the implant, in contrast to grafted skin coverage for failed autogenous reconstruction. In both systems, the skin reaction was more severe and frequent in skin flap than in grafted skin. Loosening of the implant was more frequent in the direct system; however, accidental detachment of the implant from the abutment was more frequent in the indirect system. To reduce complications of skin reaction in osseointegrated prosthetic auricular reconstruction, it is important for soft tissue around implant to immobilize. Therefore, grafted skin is better than skin flap as soft tissue around implant. And immobilization of soft tissue around implant by wound dressing is major facter.
Keywords
Microtia; Branemark system; Epitec system; Complication;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, Ohman A: Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: Experience from a 10 year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 16: 1, 1977
2 Han KH, Son DG, Kang JS: Bone-anchored ear prosthesis in children. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 23: 79, 1996
3 Tjellstrom A: Osseointegrated implants for replacement of absent or defective ears. Clin Plast Surg 17: 355, 1990
4 Farmand M, Erlangen: Ein neues implantat-system fur die befestigung von Epithesen(Epitec-system). Mund Kiefer Gesichtschirurgie 15: 421, 1991
5 Tjellstrom A, Yontchev E, Lindstrom J, Branemark PI: Five years' experience with bone-anchored auricular prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 93: 366, 1985   DOI
6 Holgers KM, Tjellstrom A, Bjursten LM, Erlandsson BE: Soft tissue reactions around percutaneous implants: a clinical study on skin penetrating titanium implants used for bone-anchored auricular prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2: 35, 1987
7 Han KH, Kim JS, Son DG, Choi DW: Epitec system: An indirect osseointegration for the ear prosthesis anchorage. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 25: 1459, 1998