Does Electrocautery Damage Cochlear Implants?

Jeyakumar, Anita; Jackson, Neal M.; Givens, Victoria B.; Brickman, Todd M.; Arriaga, Moisés A.

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000000701

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 Our patient additionally presented with cochlear implants requiring that we utilize bipolar cautery due to the presumed risk that monopolar cauterization may damage the device and that the heat generated by it may injure auditory neurons. 24 Being limited to bipolar cautery was challenging particularly given our patient's venous collateralization resulting in increased bleeding. Despite manufacturer recommendations, reports in the literature showed that monopolar cautery has not resulted in increased complications when used in the presence of cochlear implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Late Presenting Multi-Suture Craniosynostosis

Dibbs

Beh

Donoho

et al. 2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Late Presenting Multi-Suture Craniosynostosis

Dibbs

Beh

Donoho

et al. 2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result of the aforementioned studies, the group did not advocate for cautery use but argued for the consideration of more flexible recommendations from manufacturers. 8 Similarly, Antonelli and Baratelli 10 implanted CIs into fresh cadaveric pigs and performed adenoidectomy with Coblation and monopolar cautery. Monopolar settings were 50 W, and the stimulus was held to the tissue for 15 minutes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monopolar Cautery Use in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users

Page

Chapel

Silva

et al. 2022

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To determine the incidence and impact of monopolar cautery use in a cohort of pediatric cochlear implant (CI) users. Study Design Case series from a retrospective chart review and a systematic review of the literature. Setting Tertiary academic referral center. Methods CI patient charts from 2012 to 2021 were reviewed from a single pediatric hospital system to determine if monopolar cautery was used during a subsequent surgical procedure. In addition, a systematic review of the literature was performed to identify additional, relevant patients. Postoperative CI function was the primary outcome measure. Results In total, 190 patients underwent a surgical procedure following cochlear implantation in a single pediatric hospital system. Fifteen patients (7.9%) and 17 distinct surgical procedures were identified in which monopolar cautery was used. Seven of these 17 cases (41.2%) involved the head and neck, and 10 were performed below the clavicles. No patients experienced a device failure or a decline in CI performance following surgery. A systematic review identified an additional 4 patients who underwent a surgery that used monopolar cautery following cochlear implantation, and no change in CI function was identified. Conclusions The present study adds additional support to the notion that monopolar cautery does not necessarily injure CI functionality. While the most risk adverse strategy when planning a surgical procedure for a CI patient is to avoid monopolar cautery use altogether, the use of cautery should not immediately be associated with implant dysfunction.

show abstract

“…In another cadaveric study by the same group, 10 cautery was applied to the ipsilateral pectoralis major muscle or ipsilateral temporalis muscle at bipolar, monopolar coagulation, and monopolar cut settings of 50 to 100 W. The CI was fully inserted through a cochleostomy anterior to the round window by standard methods. Integrity testing was performed before, during, and after each cautery setting, and the implant was explanted and returned to the manufacturer for in-depth failure analysis to evaluate for any damage to the devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%