| Autor: |
Ceylan ME; Private Clinic, Isparta, Türkiye., Zorlu ME; Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir, Türkiye.; Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Cigli Training and Research Hospital, Bakircay University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Türkiye., Çorakçı O; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, İzmir, Türkiye., Akı ES; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, İzmir, Türkiye., Yıldırım GA; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, İzmir, Türkiye., Dalgıç A; Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir, Türkiye. |
| Abstrakt: |
Several fixation methods have been described to secure the cochlear implant's receiver/stimulator, but the optimal stabilization technique is still being debated. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional technique with suture fixation to the subperiosteal tight pocket technique in terms of revision cochlear implantation rate. A retrospective review was conducted on the medical records of 649 patients who underwent cochlear implantation. The study participants were divided into different groups regarding the applied surgery technique. The relationship between the fixation technique, revision rates, and the cause of revisions related to techniques was investigated. The overall revision rate was 2.9% (19 out of 649). There were 14 (3.5%) and 5 (2%) revision implantations in the subperiosteal tight pocket and conventional technique groups, respectively. The incidence of device failure was 2.5%, and it constituted the primary cause for revision surgery in both groups. Even though patients who had the subperiosteal tight pocket technique had a much higher rate of device failure, the results indicate that there was no significant difference between the groups, as evidenced by a P-value of .12. The conventional and subperiosteal tight pocket techniques can both be safely preferred with low revision rates in patients undergoing cochlear implantation. |
