Revision Cochlear Implantation With Device Manufacturer Conversion: Surgical Outcomes and Speech Perception Performance

Abstract

ObjectiveDescribe the clinical profile of revision cochlear implantation (RCI) cases involving device manufacturer conversion (RCImc+), compare them to cases without manufacturer conversion (RCImc−), and classify the reasons for manufacturer conversion (MC).Study DesignRetrospective case review.SettingTertiary academic center.MethodsData on demographics, RCI indications, medical background, surgical details, and the reasons for MC were collected for all RCIs from 1989 to 2020. Post‐RCI speech perception performance was categorized as unchanged, improved, or declined, according to clinically based criteria.ResultsOf 185 RCIs, 39 (21%) involved MC, mostly in pediatric patients (67%). The leading RCImc+ indications were device‐related (59%) and medical (31%) failures. Initial implant manufacturers were Advanced Bionics (49%), Cochlear (25.5%), or Medel (25.5%). Most MC reasons were patient‐driven (64%) versus CI team recommendations (36%). The RCImc+ group demonstrated a 3‐fold higher rate of medical indications than RCImc− (31% vs 11.5%, P = .007). The time interval from symptom onset to RCI was longer in RCImc+ (43 vs 20.3 months, P = .001), and the rate of multiple revisions in the same ear was higher (25.6% vs 8.2%, P = .009). Complete reinsertion rates were high in both RCImc+ and RCImc− (94.8% vs 94.5%, P = 1) without any complications. Speech perception improved or remained unchanged in most (84%) cases, with no significant difference between the groups (P = .183).ConclusionThis retrospective study showed that RCI involving MC is safe and beneficial. Although RCImc+ patients exhibited distinct clinical characteristics, MC did not impact surgical or speech perception outcomes. This provides evidence‐based data to support informed decision‐making by CI teams and patients.