Literature DB >> 25605691

228 cases of cochlear implant receiver-stimulator placement in a tight subperiosteal pocket without fixation.

Alex D Sweeney1, Matthew L Carlson1, Carla V Valenzuela1, George B Wanna1, Alejandro Rivas1, Marc L Bennett1, David S Haynes2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate the outcomes of cochlear implant receiver-stimulator (RS) placement using a tight subperiosteal pocket technique without device fixation and (2) to compare the efficiency of this approach with the traditional bony well and trough technique. STUDY
DESIGN: Case series with planned chart review.
SETTING: Single tertiary academic referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All cochlear implant surgeries utilizing a tight subperiosteal pocket without additional fixation or use of a bone well were identified retrospectively. Revision cases were only included if the tight subperiosteal pocket technique was used during the initial surgery. Patients with less than 6 months of postoperative follow-up were excluded. Primary outcome measures included RS migration, flap complications, device failure, and percentage reduction in operative time.
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eight cases (average age 45.3 years) met inclusion criterion and were analyzed. At a mean follow-up of 18.1 months, no patient experienced RS migration. One patient experienced a postoperative hematoma that was managed with observation. One patient developed a surgical site infection that resolved following exploration and intravenous antibiotics. The subperiosteal pocket technique resulted in an 18.9% reduction in total operative time compared to a more conventional RS placement method (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The tight subperiosteal pocket without fixation is a safe, durable, and time-saving technique for RS placement during cochlear implantation. Notably, device migration and flap complications are very uncommon. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cochlear implant; sensorineural hearing loss; subperiosteal pocket; surgical technique; tight pocket

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25605691     DOI: 10.1177/0194599814567111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  4 in total

1.  Durability of Hearing Preservation after Cochlear Implantation with Conventional-Length Electrodes and Scala Tympani Insertion.

Authors:  Alex D Sweeney; Jacob B Hunter; Matthew L Carlson; Alejandro Rivas; Marc L Bennett; Rene H Gifford; Jack H Noble; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie; George B Wanna
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  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

3.  Age-dependent variations of scalp thickness in the area designated for a cochlear implant receiver stimulator.

Authors:  Omer J Ungar; Uri Amit; Oren Cavel; Yahav Oron; Ophir Handzel
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-10-29

4.  Cochlear Implant Receiver Location and Migration: Experimental Validation Pilot Study of a Clinically Applicable Screening Method.

Authors:  Laura M Markodimitraki; Inge Stegeman; Adriana L Smit; Hans G X M Thomeer
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2020-01-15
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.