Private Clinic, Isparta, Türkiye.
Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir, Türkiye.
J Int Adv Otol. 2024 Jul 29;20(4):301-305. doi: 10.5152/iao.2024.231248.
Several fixation methods have been described to secure the cochlear implant's receiver/stimulator, but the optimal stabilization technique is still being debated. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional technique with suture fixation to the subperiosteal tight pocket technique in terms of revision cochlear implantation rate. A retrospective review was conducted on the medical records of 649 patients who underwent cochlear implantation. The study participants were divided into different groups regarding the applied surgery technique. The relationship between the fixation technique, revision rates, and the cause of revisions related to techniques was investigated. The overall revision rate was 2.9% (19 out of 649). There were 14 (3.5%) and 5 (2%) revision implantations in the subperiosteal tight pocket and conventional technique groups, respectively. The incidence of device failure was 2.5%, and it constituted the primary cause for revision surgery in both groups. Even though patients who had the subperiosteal tight pocket technique had a much higher rate of device failure, the results indicate that there was no significant difference between the groups, as evidenced by a P-value of .12. The conventional and subperiosteal tight pocket techniques can both be safely preferred with low revision rates in patients undergoing cochlear implantation.
已经描述了几种固定方法来固定耳蜗植入物的接收器/刺激器,但最佳的稳定技术仍在争论中。本研究旨在比较传统技术与缝线固定对皮下紧口袋技术在修正耳蜗植入率方面的效果。对 649 名接受耳蜗植入术的患者的病历进行了回顾性研究。研究参与者根据应用的手术技术分为不同的组。研究了固定技术、修正率以及与技术相关的修正原因之间的关系。总体修正率为 2.9%(649 例中的 19 例)。在皮下紧口袋和传统技术组中,分别有 14 例(3.5%)和 5 例(2%)需要修正植入。设备故障的发生率为 2.5%,这是两组修正手术的主要原因。尽管接受皮下紧口袋技术的患者设备故障发生率较高,但结果表明两组之间没有显著差异,P 值为.12。对于接受耳蜗植入术的患者,传统技术和皮下紧口袋技术都可以安全地选择,修正率较低。