Literature DB >> 21725262

Subperiosteal temporal pocket versus standard technique in cochlear implantation: a comparative clinical study.

Yahya Güldiken1, Kadir Serkan Orhan, Ozgür Yiğit, Bora Başaran, Beldan Polat, Selçuk Güneş, Engin Acoğlu, Kemal Değer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In the standard technique of cochlear implantation, the internal receiver-stimulator (IRS) is fixed into a socket drilled on the calvarial bone. In the subperiosteal technique, the IRS is fixed under the subperiosteal plane, and drilling is not necessary. The purpose of this study was to compare the subperiosteal and the standard techniques. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center; cochlear implant program. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-eight patients who underwent cochlear implantation. INTERVENTION: The researcher who evaluated the patients was not informed which of the 2 techniques was used on the patients and administered a visual analog scale (VAS) analysis. The duration of the operation, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and migration of the IRS were assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A VAS survey was administered to the patients or to their parents to evaluate the practicability of the implant.
RESULTS: The duration of the operation was 73.4 ± 17.8 minutes in the subperiosteal group and 105.5 ± 17.8 minutes in the standard technique group. The difference was statistically significant. Intracranial complications or migration of the IRS was also not observed in any patient. The VAS score was 4.2 ± 2.1 in the standard group and 4.3 ± 1.9 in the subperiosteal group. The difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: The subperiosteal technique can be safely and effectively used in cochlear implantation. Not only are there no intracranial complications and no migration of IRS was observed but also the mean operation time is reduced up to 30% and none of the patients have reported difficulty with fixing of the external device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21725262     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182255949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  6 in total

1.  Scar evaluation in subperiosteal temporal pocket versus the one-layer flap technique in cochlear implantation using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale.

Authors:  Berat Demir; Adem Binnetoglu; Ulker Mammodova; Caglar Batman
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Cochlear Implantation in Pediatric Patients: Comparison of Limited-Incision and Standard Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Mahmood Shishegar; Seyed Basir Hashemi
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2014-11-19

3.  Evaluation of a minimally invasive surgical fixation technique for young children with the Concerto Pin cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Johannes Schnabl; Astrid Wolf-Magele; Stefan Marcel Pok; Christoph Url; Patrick Zorowka; Georg Sprinzl
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Minimally invasive pocket technique for the implantation of Neurelec Digisonic SP cochlear implant.

Authors:  Martine Vanlommel; Samuel Lipski; Pierre Dolhen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Minimal invasive pocket technique for magnet bone implant hearing aid without fixation.

Authors:  Pierre Dolhen; Samuel Lipski; Rachid Touijar; Juliette Van Bogaert
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Early experience on a modern, thin cochlear implant family. A retrospective, international multicenter study.

Authors:  A Perenyi; F Toth; A A Nagy; J Skrivan; J Boucek; D C Gheorghe; A Neagos; J G Kiss; J Jori; L Rovo
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.