Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:22:54.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twenty years of experience in revision cochlear implant surgery: signs that indicate the need for revision surgery to audiologists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2019

MO Batuk ,
BC Cinar ,
M Yarali ,
MD Bajin ,
G Sennaroglu  and
L Sennaroglu
MO Batuk*
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
BC Cinar
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
M Yarali
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
MD Bajin
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
G Sennaroglu
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
L Sennaroglu
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Merve Ozbal Batuk, Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, 06100 Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +90 312 305 20 54
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To report device failures, audiological signs and other reasons for revision cochlear implant surgery, and discuss indications for revision surgery.

Methods

Revision procedures between November 1997 and August 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Over 20 years, 2181 cochlear implant operations were performed, and 114 patients underwent 127 revision operations.

Results

The revision rate was 4.67 per cent. The full insertion rate for revision cochlear implant surgery was 88.2 per cent. The most frequent reasons for revision surgery were: device failure (59 per cent), wound breakdown (9.4 per cent) and electrode malposition (8.7 per cent). The device failure rate was: 2.78 per cent for Advanced Bionics, 1.82 per cent for Cochlear and 5.25 per cent for Med-El systems. The number of active electrodes was significantly increased only for Med-El devices after revision surgery. The most common complaints among 61 patients were: gradually decreased auditory performance, sudden internal device shutdown and headaches.

Conclusion

The most common reason for revision surgery was device failure. Patients should be evaluated for device failure in cases of: no hearing despite appropriate follow up, side effects such as facial nerve stimulation, and rejection of speech processor use in paediatrics. After revision surgery, most patients have successful outcomes.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationReimplantationHearing LossReoperationSurgery
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 10 , October 2019 , pp. 903 - 907
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr MO Batuk takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Zeitler, DM, Budenz, CL, Roland, JT Jr. Revision cochlear implantation. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;17:334–8Google Scholar
2Olgun, Y, Bayrak, AF, Catli, T, Ceylan, ME, Aydin, R, Duzenli, U et al. Pediatric cochlear implant revision surgery and reimplantation: an analysis of 957 cases. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:1642–7Google Scholar
3Sorrentino, T, Côté, M, Eter, E, Laborde, M-L, Cochard, N, Deguine, O et al. Cochlear reimplantations: technical and surgical failures. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:380–4Google Scholar
4Hochmair-Desoyer, IJ, Burian, K. Reimplantation of a molded scala tympani electrode: impact on psychophysical and speech discrimination abilities. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1985;94:65–70Google Scholar
5Amaral, MSAD, Reis, ACMB, Massuda, ET, Hyppolito, MA. Cochlear implant revision surgeries in children. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2019;85:290–6Google Scholar
6Blanchard, M, Thierry, B, Glynn, F, De Lamaze, A, Garabédian, EN, Loundon, N. Cochlear implant failure and revision surgery in pediatric population. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2015;124:227–31Google Scholar
7Ray, J, Proops, D, Donaldson, I, Fielden, C, Cooper, H. Explantation and reimplantation of cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2004;5:160–7Google Scholar
8Marlowe, AL, Chinnici, JE, Rivas, A, Niparko, JK, Francis, HW. Revision cochlear implant surgery in children: the Johns Hopkins experience. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:74–82Google Scholar
9Shin, S-H, Park, S, Lee, WS, Kim, HN, Choi, JY. Revision cochlear implantation with different electrodes can cause incomplete electrode insertion and poor performance. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:549–53Google Scholar
10Rivas, A, Marlowe, AL, Chinnici, JE, Niparko, JK, Francis, HW. Revision cochlear implantation surgery in adults: indications and results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:639–48Google Scholar
11Pamuk, A, Pamuk, G, Jafarov, S, Bajin, M, Saraç, S, Sennaroğlu, L. The effect of cochlear implant bed preparation and fixation technique on the revision cochlear implantation rate. J Laryngol Otol 2018;132:534–9Google Scholar
12Sennaroglu, L, Sarac, S, Turan, E. Modified minimal access surgery for MedEl and Clarion cochlear implants. Laryngoscope 2005;115:921–4Google Scholar
13Shelton, C, Warren, FM. Minimal access cochlear implant fixation: temporalis pocket with a plate. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1530–4Google Scholar