Cochlear implant fixation using a subperiosteal tight pocket without either suture or bone-recess technique

Objectives/Hypothesis To assess the complication and migration rates associated with the fixation of cochlear implant receiver‐stimulators using a subperiosteal tight pocket without either suture fixation or bone recession. Study Design Dual‐institution retrospective case review. Methods A retrospec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Laryngoscope 2014-07, Vol.124 (7), p.1674-1677
Main Authors: Jethanamest, Daniel, Channer, Guyan A., Moss, William J., Lustig, Lawrence R., Telischi, Fred F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Child, Preschool
Cochlear implant
Cochlear Implants
Deafness - surgery
Female
fixation
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Infant
Male
Middle Aged
Migration
minimal access
Periosteum - surgery
Recessions
Retrospective Studies
subperiosteal
surgical technique
Suture Techniques - instrumentation
Sutures
temporalis pocket
Time Factors
Transplants & implants
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives/Hypothesis To assess the complication and migration rates associated with the fixation of cochlear implant receiver‐stimulators using a subperiosteal tight pocket without either suture fixation or bone recession. Study Design Dual‐institution retrospective case review. Methods A retrospective case review was conducted at two tertiary referral centers. All patients who underwent cochlear implantation with device fixation using a subperiosteal tight pocket without suturing over the device or recessing of the receiver stimulator in bone were identified. There was a minimum follow‐up period of 6 months. Outcome measures included intraoperative and postoperative complications, including evidence of device migration associated with interference with external device use or the need for revision surgery. Other outcome measures included soft tissue flap complications. Results Sixty‐two patients were identified with a mean age of 39 years, (range 1.5–5 years). The average follow‐up period was 32.6 months (range 6–120 months). Device manufacturers included Cochlear Corporation (Denver, CO) (n = 44), MED‐EL (Durham, NC) (n = 12), and Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA) (n = 6). There were no associated intraoperative complications related to subperiosteal pocket fixation of the receiver stimulator, and no cases of migration were identified. Conclusion Fixation of the cochlear implant receiver stimulator using a subperiosteal tight pocket without either suture fixation or bone recession has been demonstrated to be feasible across a range of patient demographics and cochlear implant devices. This method of fixation appears to allow for an efficient and minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety or device performance. Level of Evidence 4. Laryngoscope, 124:1674–1677, 2014
ISSN:0023-852X
1531-4995
DOI:10.1002/lary.24426