학술논문
Electrode migration in cochlear implant patients: not an exception.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
van der Marel KS; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.; Verbist BM; Briaire JJ; Joemai RM; Frijns JH
Source
Publisher: Karger Country of Publication: Switzerland NLM ID: 9606930 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1421-9700 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14203030 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Audiol Neurootol Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Objective: It was the aim of this study to investigate the occurrence of electrode migration of a cochlear implant in patients with and without complaints.
Methods: We performed a retrospective case review in a tertiary referral center. The electrode position was evaluated in 35 cochlear implantees, 16 with a CII HiFocus1 (non-positioner) and 19 with a HiRes90K HiFocus1J, using multiplanar reconstructions of the postoperative CT scans. Of 5 patients, a second scan was obtained to evaluate complaints of performance drop, vertigo, tinnitus, headache or nonauditory stimulation. Displacements of the electrode contacts were calculated and displacements of >1 mm were considered a migration. The possible correlation with implant type, insertion depth or presence of complaints was analyzed.
Results: Migrations were detected in 10 patients (29%). There was a significant effect of the implant type in favour of the HiFocus1, but no relation with the original insertion depth of the device. In the 5 patients scanned because of complaints, two migrations were detected.
Conclusions: In our patient population, electrode migration was not uncommon and turned out to occur in patients with and without complaints.
(Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)
Methods: We performed a retrospective case review in a tertiary referral center. The electrode position was evaluated in 35 cochlear implantees, 16 with a CII HiFocus1 (non-positioner) and 19 with a HiRes90K HiFocus1J, using multiplanar reconstructions of the postoperative CT scans. Of 5 patients, a second scan was obtained to evaluate complaints of performance drop, vertigo, tinnitus, headache or nonauditory stimulation. Displacements of the electrode contacts were calculated and displacements of >1 mm were considered a migration. The possible correlation with implant type, insertion depth or presence of complaints was analyzed.
Results: Migrations were detected in 10 patients (29%). There was a significant effect of the implant type in favour of the HiFocus1, but no relation with the original insertion depth of the device. In the 5 patients scanned because of complaints, two migrations were detected.
Conclusions: In our patient population, electrode migration was not uncommon and turned out to occur in patients with and without complaints.
(Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)