Management of Already Inserted Ventilation Tubes During Pediatric Cochlear Implantation: To Remove or Leave the Tube?

OBJECTIVE

Ventilation tube (VT) insertion is usually recommended before cochlear implantation (CI) in pediatric cochlear implant candidates with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) or chronic otitis media with effusion (OME). However, there is no consensus on whether the VT is beneficial even after CI, that is, whether the tube should be removed or left in place during CI. This study aimed to assess the effect of tube placement after CI, especially on the incidence of post-CI AOM, in pediatric cochlear implant recipients who had undergone VT insertion before CI because of recurrent AOM or chronic OME.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective medical record review.

SETTING

A tertiary referral cochlear implant center.

PATIENTS

This study recruited 58 consecutive ears of children who underwent VT insertion followed by CI at age 7 years or younger between 2004 and 2021. Before October 2018, we removed the VT simultaneously with CI (removed group, 39 ears), while since then, the tube has remained in place during CI (retained group, 19 ears).

INTERVENTION

Therapeutic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was the proportion of ears that developed AOM at post-CI 6 months in the removed and retained groups.

RESULTS

The age at CI was significantly higher in the removed group than in the retained group (mean [standard deviation]: the removed group, 2.9 [1.2] yr; the retained group: 1.5 [0.8] yr; p < 0.001). The removed group showed a significantly higher proportion of ears with post-CI AOM (8 of 39 ears; 20.5%) than the retained group (none of 19 ears; 0%) 6 months after CI ( p = 0.044). The AOM-free proportion at post-CI 12 months was 76.9% in the removed group and 83.3% in the retained group, demonstrating no significant difference ( p = 0.49), probably because the VT was spontaneously extruded in the retained group at a median of 6.5 months after CI. Throughout the study period, 17 ears (13 from the removed group) were affected by post-CI AOM. Of these, three ears in the removed group and two in the retained group after spontaneous extrusion of the VT were hospitalized and treated with intravenous antibiotics for AOM that had failed to respond to oral antibiotic therapy. Only one ear in the removed group required an explanation of the infected implant. None suffered from chronic perforation of the tympanic membrane or secondary cholesteatoma after VT insertion or meningitis associated with post-CI AOM.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that in CI for children who already have a VT because of a recurrent AOM or chronic OME, retaining the tube in position, rather than removing the tube, may decrease the incidence of AOM at least within 6 months after CI, during which most cochlear implant device infection was reported in the pediatric population.