Comparison of Conventional Technique with Suture Fixation and Subperiosteal Tight Pocket Technique on Revision Cochlear Implantation Rate.

Mehmet Emrah Ceylan, Mehmet Ekrem Zorlu, Onur Çorakçı, Ecem Sevim Akı, Gökçe Aksoy Yıldırım, Abdullah Dalgıç
{"title":"Comparison of Conventional Technique with Suture Fixation and Subperiosteal Tight Pocket Technique on Revision Cochlear Implantation Rate.","authors":"Mehmet Emrah Ceylan, Mehmet Ekrem Zorlu, Onur Çorakçı, Ecem Sevim Akı, Gökçe Aksoy Yıldırım, Abdullah Dalgıç","doi":"10.5152/iao.2024.231248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":94238,"journal":{"name":"The journal of international advanced otology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363184/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of international advanced otology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2024.231248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
传统技术与缝合固定和骨膜下紧袋技术在人工耳蜗翻修植入率方面的比较。
已有多种固定方法用于固定人工耳蜗的接收器/刺激器,但最佳的稳定技术仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较缝合固定的传统技术和骨膜下紧袋式技术的人工耳蜗植入翻修率。研究人员对接受人工耳蜗植入术的 649 名患者的病历进行了回顾性审查。研究人员根据应用的手术技术将参与者分为不同的组别。研究调查了固定技术、翻修率以及与技术相关的翻修原因之间的关系。总体翻修率为 2.9%(649 人中有 19 人)。骨膜下紧缩袋组和传统技术组分别有 14 例(3.5%)和 5 例(2%)翻修植入。装置失败的发生率为 2.5%,是两组患者进行翻修手术的主要原因。尽管采用骨膜下紧实袋技术的患者的装置故障率要高得多,但结果表明,两组之间并无显著差异,P 值为 0.12。在接受人工耳蜗植入术的患者中,传统技术和骨膜下紧缩袋技术都是安全的首选,且翻修率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Audio-vestibular Findings in a Patient with Pelizaeus- Merzbacher Disease. Cavernous Hemangioma of the Mastoid Antrum. Cochlear Implantation in Single-Sided Deafness and Asymmetric Hearing Loss: 12 Months Follow-up Results of a European Multicenter Evaluation. Comparison of Conventional Technique with Suture Fixation and Subperiosteal Tight Pocket Technique on Revision Cochlear Implantation Rate. Comparison of Total Endoscopic Ear Surgery and Microscopic Postauricular Canal-Wall-Down Approach on Primary Acquired Cholesteatoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1