Cochlear reimplantation

Saeed, Shakeel R; Ramsden, R. T.; Hartley, Christopher; Woolford, T. J.; Boyd, Paul

doi:10.1017/s0022215100131810

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our reimplanted children outcomes fully correspond to already published good outcomes following reimplantation [14,15]. Pure tone thresholds remained at the same level as before device failures have happened, as are speech audiograms, enabling continuation of optimal rehabilitation course.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

The influence of potentially limiting factors on paediatric outcomes following cochlear implantation

Vlahović¹,

Šindija²

2004

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

The influence of potentially limiting factors on paediatric outcomes following cochlear implantation

Vlahović¹,

Šindija²

2004

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Electrode misplacement was also described in several reports [2,3,7,14,23] . Noteworthy, the fi rst case of improper electrode insertion was in our third-ever implantation, and the second case occurred at revision surgery for device failure in a child implanted with the MPTA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Surgical and Medical Complications following Cochlear Implantation: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches

Migirov

Yakirevitch

Kronenberg³

2006

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our study was designed to evaluate the complication rate of cochlear implantation (CI) and to compare two different surgical approaches that are currently being used for implantations in our department. This retrospective study was conducted on the patients who underwent CI in our center between 1989 and 2003 and who were followed-up for at least 18 months. The patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique that had been used for the implantation: the mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy approach and the suprameatal approach (without mastoidectomy). The incidence of complications following CI was compared between the two groups and between children and adults. Facial nerve paralysis, electrode misplacement, injury to the chorda tympani nerve and mastoiditis occurred only in the mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy approach group. Acute middle ear infection with or without mastoiditis emerged as the most common complication in both groups, followed by vestibular and wound problems. Disequilibrium was significantly more common among the adults than among the children (p < 0.0001). The suprameatal approach was demonstrated as being a good alternative technique to the classical surgery for CI.

show abstract

“…Panellists stressed the importance of communicating verbally and in writing that replacement surgery may result in incomplete electrode insertion or otherwise provide less than-desired results. Several case series demonstrate that replacement surgery, although usually successful, does not always improve performance (Olsen and Matkin, 1991;Saeed et al, 1995;Woolford et al, 1995;Miyamoto et al, 1997;Balkany et al, 1999;Henson and Slattery, 1999;Alexiades et al, 2001;Parisier et al, 2001;Hamzavi et al, 2002;Fayad et al, 2004).…”

Section: What Are the Best Practices In Management Of Soft Failure?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these cases, reimplantation should probably be reserved for those whose aversive symptoms or signs are so severe that they are willing to give up the device to be rid of the symptoms. However, most revision surgeries are undertaken for patients with both aversive auditory and non-auditory symptoms; under these conditions, replacement in the same ear has been associated with a high likelihood of success (Olsen and Matkin, 1991;Saeed et al, 1995;Woolford et al, 1995;Miyamoto et al, 1997;Balkany et al, 1999;Henson and Slattery, 1999;Alexiades et al, 2001;Parisier et al, 2001;Hamzavi et al, 2002;Buchman et al, 2004;Fayad et al, 2004). Although exceptions will occur, as noted above there appear to be more advantages of ipsilateral replacement surgery when compared to the other options.…”

Section: Cochlear Implant Soft Failures Consensus Statement 115mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implant soft failures consensus development conference statement

Balkany

Hodges

Buchman

et al. 2005

Cochlear Implants Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Consensus Statement was prepared by a panel of experts representing the fields of otolaryngology, audiology, speech and language pathology, communication science and engineering. Representatives to the conference were appointed by professional organizations including the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Otological Society, the American Neurotology Society, the William House Cochlear Implant Group, the British Cochlear Implant Group, and the European Academy of Otology and NeuroOtology.The statement is based on: (1) preliminary research and consultation by a steering committee selected for their relevant experience representing the professions of individuals working with cochlear implants; (2) The statement reflects the panel's assessment of relevant information available at the time it was written. It is to be expected that new information and data are constantly being generated that may alter the recommendations of this panel. The list of references accompanying this report includes the primary sources used by the panellists in developing their preliminary statements. ObjectivesTo provide professionals working in all areas of cochlear implantation with a current consensus on the terminology, definition, diagnosis and management of suspected cochlear implant malfunctions widely referred to as 'soft failures'. ParticipantsThe panels consisted of 19 individuals directly involved in development, manufacturing and clinical application of cochlear implants. Representatives from the specialties of otolaryngology, audiology, bioengineering, speech and language pathology, communication sciences and industry participated. Interactive presentations were made during an open session in the Consensus Conference to an audience of approximately 190 professionals. EvidenceThree separate panels composed of representatives from the several disciplines involved in cochlear implantation researched, discussed and formed a preliminary statement on one of three questions. Tw o further questions were added post-hoc. Data and peer-reviewed publications were prioritized over expert opinion. The three groups were charged with investigating relevant literature in this area, gathering clinical data and drawing on the experience of each of the selected members to develop a preliminary joint statement. These statements were presented in an open forum for consideration and discussion by interested attendees. ConsensusThe panel, answering three predefined questions and two post-hoc questions, developed its final consensus based on the evidence presented by each of the three committees as well as from pertinent attendee comments presented during the open forum. Consensus StatementThe steering committee composed a draft statement that was circulated to all panellists for comment. Conflicting positions were then resolved by the panel chairs, after which a summary statement was published in Otology and Neurotology and a full statement in Cochlear Implants International.

show abstract

Cochlear reimplantation

Cited by 30 publications

References 12 publications

The influence of potentially limiting factors on paediatric outcomes following cochlear implantation

The influence of potentially limiting factors on paediatric outcomes following cochlear implantation

Surgical and Medical Complications following Cochlear Implantation: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches

Cochlear implant soft failures consensus development conference statement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About