OBJECTIVE: It was the aim of this study to investigate the occurrence of electrode migration of a cochlear implant in patients with and without complaints. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case review in a tertiary referral center. The electrode position was evaluated in 35 cochlear implantees, 16 with a CII HiFocus1 (non-positioner) and 19 with a HiRes90K HiFocus1J, using multiplanar reconstructions of the postoperative CT scans. Of 5 patients, a second scan was obtained to evaluate complaints of performance drop, vertigo, tinnitus, headache or nonauditory stimulation. Displacements of the electrode contacts were calculated and displacements of >1 mm were considered a migration. The possible correlation with implant type, insertion depth or presence of complaints was analyzed. RESULTS: Migrations were detected in 10 patients (29%). There was a significant effect of the implant type in favour of the HiFocus1, but no relation with the original insertion depth of the device. In the 5 patients scanned because of complaints, two migrations were detected. CONCLUSIONS: In our patient population, electrode migration was not uncommon and turned out to occur in patients with and without complaints.
OBJECTIVE: It was the aim of this study to investigate the occurrence of electrode migration of a cochlear implant in patients with and without complaints. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case review in a tertiary referral center. The electrode position was evaluated in 35 cochlear implantees, 16 with a CII HiFocus1 (non-positioner) and 19 with a HiRes90K HiFocus1J, using multiplanar reconstructions of the postoperative CT scans. Of 5 patients, a second scan was obtained to evaluate complaints of performance drop, vertigo, tinnitus, headache or nonauditory stimulation. Displacements of the electrode contacts were calculated and displacements of >1 mm were considered a migration. The possible correlation with implant type, insertion depth or presence of complaints was analyzed. RESULTS: Migrations were detected in 10 patients (29%). There was a significant effect of the implant type in favour of the HiFocus1, but no relation with the original insertion depth of the device. In the 5 patients scanned because of complaints, two migrations were detected. CONCLUSIONS: In our patient population, electrode migration was not uncommon and turned out to occur in patients with and without complaints.
Authors: Jennifer T O'Malley; Barbara J Burgess; Meng-Yu Zhu; Hugh D Curtin; Joseph B Nadol Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Floris Heutink; Simone R de Rijk; Berit M Verbist; Wendy J Huinck; Emmanuel A M Mylanus Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Paul Van de Heyning; Peter Roland; Luis Lassaletta; Sumit Agrawal; Marcus Atlas; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Kevin Brown; Marco Caversaccio; Stefan Dazert; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Rudolf Hagen; Abdulrahman Hagr; Greg Eigner Jablonski; Mohan Kameswaran; Vladislav Kuzovkov; Martin Leinung; Yongxin Li; Andreas Loth; Astrid Magele; Robert Mlynski; Joachim Mueller; Lorne Parnes; Andreas Radeloff; Chris Raine; Gunesh Rajan; Joachim Schmutzhard; Henryk Skarzynski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Georg Sprinzl; Hinrich Staecker; Timo Stöver; Dayse Tavora-Viera; Vedat Topsakal; Shin-Ichi Usami; Vincent Van Rompaey; Nora M Weiss; Wilhelm Wimmer; Mario Zernotti; Javier Gavilan Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-03-24