Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:35:38.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tailed Palva flap in the subperiosteal pocket technique for cochlear implantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2015

K S Orhan ,
B Polat ,
N Enver  and
Y Güldiken
K S Orhan*
Affiliation:
Department of ORL, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey
B Polat
Affiliation:
Department of ORL, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey
N Enver
Affiliation:
Department of ORL, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey
Y Güldiken
Affiliation:
Department of ORL, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Kadir Serkan Orhan, Department of ORL, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey Fax: +90 212 6358522 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

In recent years, the subperiosteal pocket technique has become popular for minimal access cochlear implantation. Many incision techniques have been described in cochlear implantation.

Objective:

This study aimed to demonstrate the safety and reliability of a new periosteal incision, called tailed Palva incision, in cochlear implantation.

Methods:

A total of 280 patients who underwent cochlear implantation with the subperiosteal pocket technique between June 2008 and January 2013 were included in the study.

Results:

The patients were followed up for between 11 and 74 months (mean ± standard deviation = 34 ± 19 months). No intracranial complications were seen during or after the operations. Additionally, there was no migration of the receiver-stimulator. Revision surgery was performed in eight patients (3 per cent), one of whom (0.4 per cent) had local flap failure and infection.

Conclusion:

This study shows that the tailed Palva incision facilitates easy insertion of the implant and, by creating a one-way obscured pocket, this technique also enhances stabilisation of the receiver-stimulator, thereby avoiding anterior migration.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationPostoperative ComplicationsHearing Loss
Type
Short Communication
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 9 , September 2015 , pp. 916 - 918
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

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

1Orhan, KS, Polat, B, Enver, N, Celik, M, Güldiken, Y, Değer, K et al. Spontaneous bone bed formation in cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1752–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Balkany, TJ, Whitley, M, Shapira, Y, Angeli, SI, Brown, K, Eter, E et al. The temporalis pocket technique for cochlear implantation: an anatomic and clinical study. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:903–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Güldiken, Y, Orhan, KS, Yiğit, 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;32:987–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Ray, J, Gibson, W, Sanli, H.Surgical complications of 844 consecutive cochlear implantations and observations on large versus small incisions. Cochlear Implants Int 2004;5:87–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Ulug, T, Teker, AM.Minimally invasive cochlear implantation with mastoidal three-layer flap technique. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2009;71:292–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Bayazit, YA, Goksu, N, Ozbilen, S.Mini-incision for pediatric cochlear implantation with a MED-EL device. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2007;69:311–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Jethanamest, 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;124:1674–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Cuda, 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;77:1158–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Orhan, KS, Guldiken, Y, Basaran, B, Ulusan, M, Polat, B, Çelik, M et al. Complications and their management following pediatric cochlear implantations. Int Adv Otol 2012;8:244–52Google Scholar