Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Active middle ear implants (1)
- Auditory system (1)
- Bone conduction devices (1)
- Consensus statement (1)
- Health policy (1)
- Mixed hearing loss (1)
- Multi-stakeholder approach (1)
- Rehabilitation (1)
- Surgery (1)
- Technical data (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Nowadays, several options are available to treat patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Whenever surgical intervention is not possible or contra-indicated, and amplification by a conventional hearing device (e.g., behind-the-ear device) is not feasible, then implantable hearing devices are an indispensable next option. Implantable bone-conduction devices and middle-ear implants have advantages but also limitations concerning complexity/invasiveness of the surgery, medical complications, and effectiveness. To counsel the patient, the clinician should have a good overview of the options with regard to safety and reliability as well as unequivocal technical performance data. The present consensus document is the outcome of an extensive iterative process including ENT specialists, audiologists, health-policy scientists, and representatives/technicians of the main companies in this field. This document should provide a first framework for procedures and technical characterization to enhance effective communication between these stakeholders, improving health care.
Background: Treatment of first-time shoulder dislocation (FSD) is a topic of debate. After high rates of recurrent instability after nonoperative management were reported in the literature, primary repair of FSD significantly increased. At the same time, new concepts were proposed that had promising results for immobilization in external rotation (ER) and abduction (ABD). Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the recurrence rates (primary outcome) and clinical outcomes (secondary outcome parameters) of immobilization in ER+ABD versus arthroscopic primary stabilization after FSD. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with FSD were randomized to either treatment with immobilization in 60° of ER plus 30° of ABD (group 1) or surgical treatment with arthroscopic Bankart repair (group 2). Clinical evaluation was performed 1, 3, and 6 weeks as well as 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively or after reduction, including range of motion, instability testing, subjective shoulder value, Constant-Murley score, Rowe score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. Recurrent instability events were prospectively recorded. Results: Between 2011 and 2017, a total of 112 patients were included in this study. Of these, 60 patients were allocated to group 1 and 52 to group 2. At the 24-month follow-up, 91 patients (81.3%) were available for clinical examination. The recurrence rate was 19.1% in group 1 and 2.3% in group 2 (P = .016). No significant differences were found between groups regarding clinical shoulder scores (P > .05). Due to noncompliance with the immobilization treatment protocol, 4 patients (6.7%) were excluded. Conclusion: Immobilization in ER+ABD versus primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for the treatment of FSD showed no differences in clinical shoulder scores. However, recurrent instability was significantly higher after nonoperative treatment.