Literature DB >> 22425203

Comparison of complications by technique used in cochlear implants.

Mario E Zernotti1, Alejo Suárez, Víctor Slavutsky, Luis Nicenboim, María Fernanda Di Gregorio, Juan Andrés Soto.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Complications are a very sensitive indicator of the usefulness of a surgical technique. In cochlear implant surgery, there are 3 principal approaches: the classic approach uses the facial recess (FR), the suprameatal approach (SMA) does not require mastoidectomy and uses the creation of a tunnel over the facial nerve to enter the middle ear, and the endomeatal approach (EMA) is based on the completion of a groove in the posterior wall of external auditory canal.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentre review of 208 patients with cochlear implants, comparing the different techniques. The complications were classified into major and minor.
RESULTS: Among the 208 implanted patients, 10.5% (22 of 208) had complications. Of these, 2.88% (6 of 208) were major complications and 7.69% (16 of 208) were minor complications. Comparing the results obtained by the different approaches, the FR technique had the lowest rate of major complications (1.1%), followed by the EMA technique with 2.38% and SMA with 3.75%. As for minor complications, operations in the SMA group had the lowest rate (6.25%), followed by the EMA group (7.14%) and the group operated on using the FR technique presented the highest (10%).
CONCLUSIONS: The 3 techniques described show very similar rates of complications. Consequently, we can conclude that they are safe and are alternatives.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22425203     DOI: 10.1016/j.otorri.2012.01.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp        ISSN: 0001-6519


  3 in total

1.  Definition of metrics to evaluate cochlear array insertion forces performed with forceps, insertion tool, or motorized tool in temporal bone specimens.

Authors:  Yann Nguyen; Guillaume Kazmitcheff; Daniele De Seta; Mathieu Miroir; Evelyne Ferrary; Olivier Sterkers
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 2.  Non-mastoidectomy Cochlear Implant Approaches: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Mohammad Waheed El-Anwar; Ahmed Shaker ElAassar; Yaser Ahmad Foad
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-23

3.  Cochlear Implant Surgery: Endomeatal Approach versus Posterior Tympanotomy.

Authors:  Francesco Freni; Francesco Gazia; Victor Slavutsky; Enrique Perello Scherdel; Luis Nicenboim; Rodrigo Posada; Daniele Portelli; Bruno Galletti; Francesco Galletti
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 3.390

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.