๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Incidence and indications for revision cochlear implant surgery in adults and children

โœ Scribed by Kevin D. Brown; Sarah S. Connell; Thomas J. Balkany; Adrien E. Eshraghi; Fred F. Telischi; Simon A. Angeli


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2009
Tongue
English
Weight
193 KB
Volume
119
Category
Article
ISSN
0023-852X

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis:

To identify the incidence of and common causes for cochlear implant revision.

Study Design:

Retrospective case series.

Methods:

Operative records were reviewed for all cases of revision cochlear implantation from 1992 to 2006. The causes for reimplantation were classified as hard device failure, soft device failure, exposure/infection, receiver/stimulator migration, and electrode migration. Manufacturers' failure analysis of explanted devices was likewise determined.

Results:

Eight hundred and six cochlear implants were performed during the study period including 44 (5.5%) revision procedures. The revision rate was 7.3% for children and 3.8% for adults and reached statistical significant difference. The most common reasons for revision were device failure (78%; 55% hard failure, 23% soft failure) followed by electrode migration (9%) and receiver/stimulator migration (7%). Manufacturers' analysis of failed devices revealed loss of hermetic seal and cracked cases to be the most common causes of failure. Bench analysis of 5/10 explanted devices that were soft failures demonstrated identifiable device defects.

Conclusions:

Revision cochlear implant surgery is an infrequent occurrence. Its incidence appears to be higher in children than in adults, although in this series does not appear to be due to increased wound complications, infections, or trauma. Explanted implants that have soft failure as the etiology may have demonstrable defects on bench testing. Laryngoscope, 119:152โ€“157, 2009


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


Is there a critical period for cochlear
โœ Robert V. Harrison; Karen A. Gordon; Richard J. Mount ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2005 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 169 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

## Abstract A range of basic and applied studies have demonstrated that during the development of the auditory system, early experimental manipulations or clinical interventions are generally more effective than those made later. We present a short review of these studies. We investigated this ageโ€

What is the effect of time between seque
โœ Yvette E. Smulders; Albert B. Rinia; Maroeska M. Rovers; Gijsbert A. van Zanten; ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2011 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 206 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

Objectives/Hypothesis: Bilateral cochlear implantation is a safe and effective intervention for severe sensorineural hearing loss and is believed to be more effective than unilateral implantation. This review article investigates the effect of time between sequential cochlear implantations on hearin