Shawn M Stevens1, Hayden Dougherty2, Lisa Wenstrup3, Theresa Hammer3, Tyler Cole4, Andrew Redmann5, Myles L Pensak3, Ravi N Samy6. 1. Arizona Otolaryngology Consultants and Barrow Neurologic Institute, University of Cincinnati, Phoenix, Arizona. 2. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurologic Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Childrens, Cincinnati, Ohio. 6. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Medicine and Neurosensory Disorders Center at UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
OUTCOME OBJECTIVES: STUDY DESIGN: : Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Single tertiary care center, 2001 to 2016. PATIENTS: Adult CI recipients were assessed. Inclusion required ≥1 revision surgeries, operative note(s), and postrevision follow-up of 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic/rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Indications for revision (HF, SF, WC, and MM) were tabulated. The incidence of each was compared between cohorts implanted before/after 2011. Additional outcomes included implant usage, explantation rates, and postrevision speech scores. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-two patients received 512 CIs. Of these, 30 patients required 38 revisions. Median time to revision was 24.5 months. Frequency by indication was HF (n = 14), SF (n = 12), WC (n = 8), and MM (n = 4). The overall revision rate was 7.4%. There was a significant decline in overall revisions for patients implanted before/after 2011 (10.4 versus3.5%; p = 0.009). No patients implanted after 2011 experienced a HF (p = 0.002). Patients with WC/MM had significantly shorter time to revision compared with patients with HF/SF (p = 0.04). The overall median follow-up was 24 months. Twenty-three of 30 patients are still using their revised CI. Patients revised for HF and MM achieved the best outcomes. CONCLUSION: 7.4% of adult CI recipients required revision surgery. Explantation/immediate reimplantation was an effective management strategy. While HF was the most common indication overall, no patients implanted after 2011 have suffered this complication. The overall revision rate has significantly declined since 2011.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVES: STUDY DESIGN: : Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Single tertiary care center, 2001 to 2016. PATIENTS: Adult CI recipients were assessed. Inclusion required ≥1 revision surgeries, operative note(s), and postrevision follow-up of 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic/rehabilitative. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Indications for revision (HF, SF, WC, and MM) were tabulated. The incidence of each was compared between cohorts implanted before/after 2011. Additional outcomes included implant usage, explantation rates, and postrevision speech scores. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-two patients received 512 CIs. Of these, 30 patients required 38 revisions. Median time to revision was 24.5 months. Frequency by indication was HF (n = 14), SF (n = 12), WC (n = 8), and MM (n = 4). The overall revision rate was 7.4%. There was a significant decline in overall revisions for patients implanted before/after 2011 (10.4 versus3.5%; p = 0.009). No patients implanted after 2011 experienced a HF (p = 0.002). Patients with WC/MM had significantly shorter time to revision compared with patients with HF/SF (p = 0.04). The overall median follow-up was 24 months. Twenty-three of 30 patients are still using their revised CI. Patients revised for HF and MM achieved the best outcomes. CONCLUSION: 7.4% of adult CI recipients required revision surgery. Explantation/immediate reimplantation was an effective management strategy. While HF was the most common indication overall, no patients implanted after 2011 have suffered this complication. The overall revision rate has significantly declined since 2011.