Outcomes after cochlear reimplantation in children

Sterkers, F.; Merklen, F P; Piron, Jean Pierre; Vieu, Adrienne; Venail, F.; Uziel, Alain; Mondain, M.

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.03.015

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When pooled, these studies accounted for 21,301 cochlear implants, 1,277 reimplants, and an overall reimplantation rate of 6.0% (range, 0.47%-6.87%) (Table V). 4,5,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]17,18,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Studies ranged in the duration of data collection from 7 to 30 years and ranged in primary implant numbers from 212 to 3,417. The pooled medical failure rate was 2.1%, and the device failure rate was 3.6%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implant failures and reimplantation: A 30‐year analysis and literature review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis The objectives of the study were to present an institutional experience with device failures and cochlear reimplantation rates over a 30‐year period and to perform a detailed literature review. Study Design Retrospective institutional experience and literature review. Methods A review of cochlear implant failures over a period of 30 years, between January 1988 and March 2017, at a single institution was conducted. Cochlear implant failures were calculated based on manufacturer, type of failure, and overall failure rate. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan‐Meier curves. An electronic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases revealed 24 articles on the topic of cochlear device failure. Data on reimplantation and device failure rates were extracted from this literature review and analyzed. Results A total of 804 cochlear implantations were reviewed from three manufacturers. The institutional reimplantation rate was 2.9% compared to the pooled rate of 6.0% calculated from the literature review. Medical failures accounted for 0.5% of the overall failures, device failures accounted for 1.6%, and inconclusive failures account for 0.7%. Survival analysis revealed a significant difference among manufacturers. An improved device failure rate was noted in the adult population (0.8%) as compared to the pediatric population (2.8%). Conclusions This 30‐year review represents one of the longest series in the literature examining reimplantation, device failure, and medical failure rates. Cochlear implant survival varied by manufacturer and was significantly better in adult compared to pediatric patients. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 130:782–789, 2020

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implant failures and reimplantation: A 30‐year analysis and literature review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…autotransplantation [16]), cleft palates [17] and other developmental disorders, airway evaluation [18], temporomandibular disorders (e.g. juvenile idiopathic arthritis [19], ankylosis [20]), and non-dental indications such as middle ear evaluation [21]. Patients under 5 years old being scanned using dental CBCT are rare and mainly limited to scanners with supine patient position.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of size-specific exposure settings in dental cone-beam CT

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,4 Overall reported incidence rates for CIR fall between 3% and 13%, with slightly higher rates among children than adults (5%-13%). [2][3][4][5]7,[13][14][15] CIR may be motivated by a number of factors, including hard device failure (patient performance declines secondary to malfunction of the internal device), soft failure (patient performance declines in the absence of identifiable device malfunction), trauma (e.g., blow to the head), or medical complications (e.g., infection, migration of the internal device). 1-3,7,13 From a group of 60 patients undergoing CIR, Donatelli Lassig et al 1 describe 10 patients who reported technology upgrade as a primary reason for undergoing revision surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reimplantation is generally considered a low‐risk procedure for adults and children. Surgical and medical complications are minimal, and audiological outcomes are typically stable or improved compared to best pre‐CIR performance . The stability of speech recognition abilities is of particular interest because some patients may continue to demonstrate excellent scores even when CIR is indicated (e.g., in cases of medical complications).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surgical and medical complications are minimal, 1 and audiological outcomes are typically stable or improved compared to best pre-CIR performance. 2,3 The stability of speech recognition abilities is of particular interest because some patients may continue to demonstrate excellent scores even when CIR is indicated (e.g., in cases of medical complications). The rate of declined performance is typically less than 15% of reimplanted patients, 1,4,5 with some groups reporting stable or improved audiometric performance in 100% of their CIR patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When to replace legacy cochlear implants for technological upgrades: Indications and outcomes

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine indications, surgical efficacy, and audiologic outcomes of replacing Advanced Bionics Clarion C1.2 internal devices (Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, CA) as a means of technology upgrade. Study Design Retrospective review, case series. Methods Ten patients were initially implanted as a child (mean age = 3.87 years) and underwent cochlear implant reimplantation (CIR) with current Advanced Bionics internal device as a young adult (mean duration of implant use = 15.66 years). Demographic data and pre‐ and post‐CIR speech perception scores were collected. Results Technology upgrade was the primary (9) or secondary (1) motivation for CIR. No surgical complications were noted, and full insertion was obtained in nine cases. Intraoperative impedance levels and neural response imaging measures were within normal limits for eight patients. At most recent post‐CIR follow‐up evaluation, all patients (100%) performed within or better than the 95% confidence interval of their pre‐CIR word and sentence recognition scores; and 55.6%, 50.0%, and 50.0% of patients performed above the 95% confidence interval of their pre‐CIR scores for the CNC words, sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise, respectively. Conclusion Post‐CIR audiological benefit was stable or improved compared to pre‐CIR results in all categories by 3 months after reactivation. Given these results, patients who are unable to use the most current external processors due to incompatibility with a legacy internal device could consider reimplanation to optimize their overall performance with a cochlear implant. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 129:748–753, 2019

show abstract

Outcomes after cochlear reimplantation in children

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

Cochlear implant failures and reimplantation: A 30‐year analysis and literature review

Cochlear implant failures and reimplantation: A 30‐year analysis and literature review

Determination of size-specific exposure settings in dental cone-beam CT

When to replace legacy cochlear implants for technological upgrades: Indications and outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About