Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:45:13.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of receiver–stimulator migration in cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique: a prospective clinical study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2017

Y Güldiken ,
B Polat ,
N Enver ,
L Aydemir ,
Ş Çomoğlu  and
K S Orhan
Y Güldiken
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Medical Faculty, University of Istanbul, Turkey
B Polat*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Medical Faculty, University of Istanbul, Turkey
N Enver
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Medical Faculty, University of Istanbul, Turkey
L Aydemir
Affiliation:
Otorhinolaryngology Department, Ministry of Health Agri State Hospital, Agri, Turkey
Ş Çomoğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Medical Faculty, University of Istanbul, Turkey
K S Orhan
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Medical Faculty, University of Istanbul, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr B Polat, Department of ORL and Head and Neck Surgery, Istanbul Medical Faculty, University of Istanbul, 34270 Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey. Fax: +90 212 414 20 00 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate migration of the receiver–stimulator after cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique.

Methods:

A prospective clinical study was performed of 32 paediatric patients (aged between 12 months and 8 years; mean ± standard deviation, 28 ± 19 months) who underwent cochlear implantation in tertiary referral centres. The degree of migration was evaluated using measurements between the receiver–stimulator and selected reference points: the lateral canthus, tragus and mastoid tip. All distances were measured during and six months after surgery.

Results:

No receiver–stimulator migration was observed when using the subperiosteal pocket technique.

Conclusion:

Concerns about implant migration in the subperiosteal pocket technique are unwarranted: this is a safe technique to use for cochlear implantation.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationHearing LossPostoperative Complications
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 487 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

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.)

References

1 Gosepath, J, Maurer, J, Mann, WJ. Epidural hematoma after cochlear implantation in a 2.5-year-old boy. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:202–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Barraclough, JP, Pearman, K, Solanki, G. Extradural haematoma presenting as a contralateral sixth nerve palsy after cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2009;10:112–18Google Scholar
3 Arnoldner, C, Baumgartner, WD, Gstoettner, W, Hamzavi, J. Surgical considerations in cochlear implantation in children and adults: a review of 342 cases in Vienna. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:228–34Google Scholar
4 Staecker, H, Chow, H, Nadol, JB. Osteomyelitis, lateral sinus thrombosis, and temporal lobe infarction caused by infection of a percutaneous cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1999;20:726–8Google Scholar
5 Davids, T, Ramsden, JD, Gordon, KA, James, AL, Papsin, BC. Soft tissue complications after small incision pediatric cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 2009;119:980–3Google Scholar
6 Molony, TB, Giles, JE, Thompson, TL MD, Motamedi, KK. Device fixation in cochlear implantation: is bone anchoring necessary? Laryngoscope 2010;120:1837–9Google Scholar
7 Black, B. Keyhole cochlear implantation surgery. Cochlear Implants Int 2009;10:150–9Google Scholar
8 Shelton, C, Warren, FM. Minimal access cochlear implant fixation: temporalis pocket with a plate. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1530–4Google Scholar
9 Causon, A, Verschuur, C, Newman, TA. Trends in cochlear implant complications: implications for improving long-term outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:259–65Google Scholar
10 Wang, JT, Wang, AY, Psarros, C, Da Cruz, M. Rates of revision and device failure in cochlear implant surgery: a 30-year experience. Laryngoscope 2014;124:2393–9Google Scholar
11 Güldiken, Y, Orhan, KS, Yigit, O, Başaran, B, Polat, B, Güneş, S et al. Subperiosteal temporal pocket versus standard technique in cochlear implantation: a comparative clinical study. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:987–91Google Scholar
12 Jethanamest, D, Channer, GA, Moss, WJ, Lustig, LR, Telischi, FF. Cochlear implant fixation using a subperiosteal tight pocket without either suture or bone-recess technique. Laryngoscope 2014;124:1674–7Google Scholar
13 Cuda, D. A simplified fixation of the new thin cochlear implant receiver-stimulators in children: long term results with the ‘back-pocket’ technique. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013;77:1158–61Google Scholar
14 Cohen, MS, Ha, AY, Kitsko, DJ, Chi, DH. Surgical outcomes with subperiosteal pocket technique for cochlear implantation in very young children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:1545–7Google Scholar
15 Sweeney, AD, Carlson, ML, Valenzuela, CV, Wanna, GB, Rivas, A, Bennett, ML et al. 228 cases of cochlear implant receiver-stimulator placement in a tight subperiosteal pocket without fixation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;152:712–17Google Scholar
16 Verbist, BM, Joemai, RMS, Teeuwisse, WM, Veldkamp, WJH, Geleijns, J, Frijns, JHM. Evaluation of 4 multisection CT systems in postoperative imaging of a cochlear implant: a human cadaver and phantom study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1382–8Google Scholar
17 Verbist, BM, Frijns, JHM, Geleijns, J, van Buchem, MA. Multisection CT as a valuable tool in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implant patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:424–9Google Scholar
18 Trieger, A, Schulze, A, Schneider, M, Zahnert, T, Mürbe, D. In vivo measurements of the insertion depth of cochlear implant arrays using flat-panel volume computed tomography. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:152–7Google Scholar
19 Lui, C-C, Peng, J-P, Li, J-H, Yang, C-H, Chen, C-K, Hwang, C-F. Detection of receiver location and migration after cochlear implantation using 3D rendering of computed tomography. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:1299–304Google Scholar