Suppr超能文献

人工耳蜗植入固定技术:文献系统综述。

Cochlear Implant Fixation Techniques: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

机构信息

Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Otol Neurotol. 2021 Aug 1;42(7):959-966. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003108.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Given the lack of consensus on fixation techniques of the cochlear implant, this review aims to create an up-to-date overview of intra- and postoperative complications, focusing on migration of the internal receiver/stimulator (R/S) device and the electrode array.

DATA SOURCES

On June 29, 2020 we conducted a search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Keywords were "Cochlear implant," "complication," "migration," and synonyms.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were considered if: 1) the adult study population consisted of ≥ 10 patients, 2) the R/S device was fixated using the bony well or tight subperiostal pocket technique without bone-anchoring sutures or screws on the implant, and 3) migration of the R/S device or displacement of the electrode array were described as outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics, interventions, follow-up, and outcomes were extracted. For critical appraisal, an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies was used.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seven studies were included (n = 430 patients). Migration of the R/S device was reported by three studies. Two studies applying the tight pocket technique reported migration rates ranging from 9.0 to 69.2%. One study using the bony bed technique reported migration of 100%, with an average of 2.5 mm. All studies lacked the required standard for comparability, assessment of outcome, and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There is currently no evidence of a difference between the bony bed- and tight pocket fixation technique, regarding migration of the R/S device or the electrode array, in adult patients.

摘要

目的

鉴于对耳蜗植入物固定技术缺乏共识,本综述旨在最新概述术中及术后并发症,重点关注内部接收器/刺激器(R/S)装置和电极阵列的迁移。

资料来源

我们于 2020 年 6 月 29 日在 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、Web of Science 和 CINAHL 进行了检索。关键词为“耳蜗植入物”、“并发症”、“迁移”和同义词。

研究选择

如果研究符合以下标准,则被认为是符合条件的:1)成年研究人群由≥10 名患者组成,2)R/S 装置采用骨槽或紧密皮下袋技术固定,而不使用植入物上的骨锚定缝线或螺钉,3)R/S 装置的迁移或电极阵列的移位被描述为结局。

资料提取

提取研究特征、干预措施、随访和结局。对于批判性评估,使用改良的纽卡斯尔-渥太华队列研究质量评估量表。

资料综合

纳入了 7 项研究(n=430 名患者)。有 3 项研究报告了 R/S 装置的迁移。采用紧密袋技术的 2 项研究报告的迁移率为 9.0%至 69.2%。采用骨床技术的 1 项研究报告的迁移率为 100%,平均为 2.5mm。所有研究均缺乏可比性、结局评估和随访的必要标准。

结论和相关性

目前,在成年患者中,R/S 装置或电极阵列的迁移方面,骨床技术和紧密袋固定技术之间没有证据表明存在差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验