OBJECTIVE: The present study reviewed a cochlear implant (CI) patient population after surgery, which received a free-fitting electrode carrier designed for hearing preservation. The aim was to determine the rate of electrode migration of the CI electrodes and present clinical and surgical implications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective patient review. SETTING: Tertiary referral university hospital. PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-eight patients implanted uni- or bilaterally with lateral wall electrodes designed for hearing preservation (358 implants). The control group was 323 patients implanted uni- or bilaterally with preformed perimodiolar electrodes (468 implants). INTERVENTIONS: Determination of CI electrode migration was conducted according to a clinical test protocol. Revision surgery was offered in confirmed patients of electrode migration. A bone groove was considered to improve the fixation of the electrode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Audiological testing including speech audiometry, subjective sound quality rating, and bilateral pitch comparison in bilateral patients, as well as radiological examinations, were conducted. RESULTS: Electrode migration was observed solely in patients implanted with lateral wall electrodes; 10 of 358 patients with free-fitting electrodes (2.8%) had electrode migration, which was successfully confirmed by the proposed clinical test protocol. Nine of the 10 confirmed patients underwent reinsertion surgery. Mean perception score decreased from 75.0% to 62.1% after electrode migration and recovered completely after reinsertion surgery. A flowchart to detect electrode migration was designed for clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Although electrode migration is a rare complication in CI surgery, long-term follow-up diagnostics should include a test protocol to detect electrode shifts of lateral wall electrode arrays. A reinsertion surgery should be conducted in confirmed patients to recover speech perception.
OBJECTIVE: The present study reviewed a cochlear implant (CI) patient population after surgery, which received a free-fitting electrode carrier designed for hearing preservation. The aim was to determine the rate of electrode migration of the CI electrodes and present clinical and surgical implications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective patient review. SETTING: Tertiary referral university hospital. PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-eight patients implanted uni- or bilaterally with lateral wall electrodes designed for hearing preservation (358 implants). The control group was 323 patients implanted uni- or bilaterally with preformed perimodiolar electrodes (468 implants). INTERVENTIONS: Determination of CI electrode migration was conducted according to a clinical test protocol. Revision surgery was offered in confirmed patients of electrode migration. A bone groove was considered to improve the fixation of the electrode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Audiological testing including speech audiometry, subjective sound quality rating, and bilateral pitch comparison in bilateral patients, as well as radiological examinations, were conducted. RESULTS: Electrode migration was observed solely in patients implanted with lateral wall electrodes; 10 of 358 patients with free-fitting electrodes (2.8%) had electrode migration, which was successfully confirmed by the proposed clinical test protocol. Nine of the 10 confirmed patients underwent reinsertion surgery. Mean perception score decreased from 75.0% to 62.1% after electrode migration and recovered completely after reinsertion surgery. A flowchart to detect electrode migration was designed for clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Although electrode migration is a rare complication in CI surgery, long-term follow-up diagnostics should include a test protocol to detect electrode shifts of lateral wall electrode arrays. A reinsertion surgery should be conducted in confirmed patients to recover speech perception.
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