Revision cochlear implantation

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 334-338

  Zeitler, Daniel M ^a   Budenz, Cameron L ^a   Roland Jr , John Thomas ^a,b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implantation; Explantation; Reimplantation; Revision surgery

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INFECTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; REVIEW; WOUND COMPLICATION;

ADULT; CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; REOPERATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 70349685229     PISSN: 10689508     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32832dd6ac     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Hochmair-Desoyer I, Burian K. Reimplantation of a molded scala tympani electrode: impact on psychophysical and speech discrimination abilities. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1985; 94:65-70. (Pubitemid 15135216)
2. Rivas A, Marlowe AL, Chinnici JE, et al. Revision cochlear implantation surgery in adults: indications and results. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29:639-648. The authors review the efficacy, risks, and indications for RCI in adults over their 16-year experience. They found that the majority of RCIs are done for device failure, and most patients have improved speech perception and functional outcomes following RCI, although advanced age is associated with poorer outcomes.
3. Venail F, Sicard M, Piron JP, et al. Reliability and complications of 500 consecutive cochlear implantations. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 134:1276-1281. The aim of this study was to characterize the causes of device failures and postcochlear implant complications, and how to manage these patients. Their results show that RCI is well tolerated with a relatively low complication rate.
4. Sorrentino T, Côté M, Eter E, et al. Cochlear reimplantations: technical and surgical failures. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129:380-384. The authors report their experience with RCI and demonstrate that over 90% of patients have stable or improved speech perception outcomes following RCI.
5. Brown KD, Connell SS, Balkany TJ, et al. Incidence and indications for revision cochlear implant surgery in adults and children. Laryngoscope 2009; 119:152-157. This large review of RCI in adults and children covers the incidence and indications for surgery. Their results indicate that the incidence of RCI is slightly higher in children, and although hard device failure is the most common indication for RCI, soft failures may also have demonstrable defects on bench testing.
6. Cullen RD, Fayad JN, Luxford WM, Buchman CA. Revision cochlear implant surgery in children. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29:214-220. This multicenter review of RCI in children demonstrates that hard device failure is the most common indication for RCI in children, and these failures are frequently associated with preceding head trauma. Additionally, they show that the majority of children improve following RCI, although adjustment to the new device may take time and exceptions do exist.
7. Waltzman SB, Roland JT Jr, Waltzman M, et al. Cochlear reimplantation in children: soft signs, symptoms and results. Cochlear Implants Int 2004; 5:138-145. (Pubitemid 40103703)
8. Kang SY, Zwolan TA, Kileny PR, et al. Incomplete electrode extraction during cochlear implant revision. Otol Neurotol 2009; 30:160-164. The authors review their experience with, and management strategies for, three pediatric RCI cases in which they were unable to completely extract the old electrode.
9. Roland JT Jr, Huang T, Cohen NL. Revision cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 2006; 39:833-839.
10. Balkany TJ, Hodges AV, Buchman CA, et al. Cochlear implant soft failure consensus development conference statement. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26:815-818. (Pubitemid 41026119)
11. Zeitler DM, Lalwani AK, Roland JT Jr, et al. The effects of cochlear implant electrode deactivation on speech perception and in predicting device failure. Otol Neurotol 2009; 30:7-13. The results of this study indicate that deactivation of electrode contacts following cochlear implant is uncommon. Although deactivation does not directly influence speech performance outcomes, the loss of five or more electrodes or deactivation of electrodes coupled with a decline in speech perception scores can suggest impending device failure.
12. Polak M, Ulubil SA, Hodges AV, Balkany TJ. Revision cochlear implantation for facial nerve stimulation in otosclerosis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 132:398-404.
13. Battmer R, Pesch J, Stover T, et al. Elimination of facial nerve stimulation by reimplantation in cochlear implant subjects. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27:918-922. (Pubitemid 44496351)
14. Kunda LD, Stidham KR, Inserra MM, et al. Silicone allergy: a new cause for cochlear implant extrusion and its management. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27:1078-1082.
15. Roland JT Jr, Fishman AJ, Waltzman SB, et al. Stability of the cochlear implant electrode array in children. Laryngoscope 1998; 108:1119-1123. (Pubitemid 28373470)
16. Connell SS, Balkany TJ, Hodges AV, et al. Electrode migration after cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29:156-159. This retrospective case series and review of the public database demonstrates that electrode migration most often occurs in association with cochlear ossification, and the incidence can be decreased through various electrode stabilization techniques.
17. Alexiades G, Roland JT Jr, Fishman AJ, et al. Cochlear reimplantation: surgical techniques and functional results. Laryngoscope 2001; 111:1608-1613. (Pubitemid 32843864)
18. Roland JT Jr, Fishman AJ, Waltzman SB, Cohen NL. Shaw scalpel in revision cochlear implant surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000; 185:23-25.
19. Laszig R, Ridder GJ, Aschendorff A, et al. Ultracision: an alternative to electrocautery in revision cochlear implant surgery. Laryngoscope 2002; 112:190-191. (Pubitemid 34037761)
20. Cohen NL, Kuzma J. Titanium clip for cochlear implant electrode fixation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 104:402-403.
21. Balkany T, Telischi FF. Fixation of the electrode cable during cochlear implantation: the split bridge technique. Laryngoscope 1995; 105:217-218.
22. Saeed SR, Ramsden RT, Hartley C, et al. Cochlear reimplantation. J Laryngol Otol 1995; 109:980-985.
23. Shepherd RK, Clark GM, Xu SA, Pyman BC. Cochlear pathology following reimplantation of a multichannel scala tympani electrode array in the macaque. Am J Otol 1995; 16:186-199.
24. Woolford TJ, Saeed SR, Boyd P, et al. Cochlear reimplantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166:449-453.
25. Parisier SC, Chute PM, Popp AL, Suh GD. Outcome analysis of cochlear implant reimplantation in children. Laryngoscope 2001; 111:26-32. (Pubitemid 32061946)
26. Fayad JN, Baino T, Parisier SC. Revision cochlear implant surgery: causes and outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck 2004; 131:429-432. (Pubitemid 39298207)
27. Fayad JN, Eisenberg LS, Gillinger M, et al. Clinical performance of children following revision surgery for a cochlear implant. Otolaryngol Head Neck 2006; 134:379-384. (Pubitemid 43267234)
28. Côté M, Ferron P, Bergeron F, Bussières R. Cochlear reimplantation: causes of failure, outcomes, and audiologic performance. Laryngoscope 2007; 117:1225-1235. As one of the largest reports in the literature on cochlear reimplantation, this study is an excellent review of the authors' experience with RCI. Their findings show that RCI is well tolerated and effective in both adults and children, and that the majority of patients maintained or improved their speech perception scores postrevision surgery. (Pubitemid 47015673)
29. Buchman CA, Higgins CA, Cullen R, Pillsbury HC. Revision cochlear implant surgery in adult patients with suspected device malfunction. Otol Neurotol 2004; 25:504-510. (Pubitemid 39079771)
30. Lassig A, Zwolan TA, Telian SA. Cochlear implant failures and revision. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26:624-634.
31. DiNardo W, Cantore I, Cianfrone F, et al. Residual hearing thresholds in cochlear implantation and reimplantation. Audiol Neurootol 2007; 12:165-169. The authors investigate residual hearing thresholds in patients following both primary and RCI. In the small cohort of patients undergoing RCI, residual hearing was preserved in two, whereas one patient had a slight threshold reduction and one patient had total loss of residual hearing. (Pubitemid 46558924)
32. Migirov L, Taitelbaum-Swead R, Hildesheimer M, Kronenberg J. Revision surgeries in cochlear implant patients: a review of 45 cases. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264:3-7. The aim of this study was to evaluate the causes, surgical findings, and audiologic outcomes in patients undergoing RCI. Device failure was the most common cause of RCI, and rates did not differ significantly between children and adults. All patients undergoing RCI in the same ear had speech perception scores the same as or better than prerevision scores. (Pubitemid 44900292)
33. Fitzgerald MB, Sagi E, Jackson M, et al. Reimplantation of hybrid cochlear implant users with a full-length electrode after loss of residual hearing. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29:168-173. The authors review their early experience with a small number of users of the hybrid cochlear implant who lost their residual hearing and derive improved perceptual benefit from RCI with a standard-length electrode. (Pubitemid 351170468)