TY - JOUR
T1 - Cochlear Implant Fixation Techniques
T2 - A Systematic Review of the Literature
AU - Markodimitraki, Laura M
AU - Strijbos, Ruben M
AU - Stegeman, Inge
AU - Thomeer, Hans G X M
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/8/1
Y1 - 2021/8/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE: Given the lack of consensus on fixation techniques of the cochlear implant, this review aims to create an up-to-date overview of intra- and postoperative complications, focusing on migration of the internal receiver/stimulator (R/S) device and the electrode array.DATA SOURCES: On June 29, 2020 we conducted a search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Keywords were "Cochlear implant," "complication," "migration," and synonyms.STUDY SELECTION: Studies were considered if: 1) the adult study population consisted of ≥ 10 patients, 2) the R/S device was fixated using the bony well or tight subperiostal pocket technique without bone-anchoring sutures or screws on the implant, and 3) migration of the R/S device or displacement of the electrode array were described as outcomes.DATA EXTRACTION: Study characteristics, interventions, follow-up, and outcomes were extracted. For critical appraisal, an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies was used.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven studies were included (n = 430 patients). Migration of the R/S device was reported by three studies. Two studies applying the tight pocket technique reported migration rates ranging from 9.0 to 69.2%. One study using the bony bed technique reported migration of 100%, with an average of 2.5 mm. All studies lacked the required standard for comparability, assessment of outcome, and follow-up.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is currently no evidence of a difference between the bony bed- and tight pocket fixation technique, regarding migration of the R/S device or the electrode array, in adult patients.
AB - OBJECTIVE: Given the lack of consensus on fixation techniques of the cochlear implant, this review aims to create an up-to-date overview of intra- and postoperative complications, focusing on migration of the internal receiver/stimulator (R/S) device and the electrode array.DATA SOURCES: On June 29, 2020 we conducted a search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Keywords were "Cochlear implant," "complication," "migration," and synonyms.STUDY SELECTION: Studies were considered if: 1) the adult study population consisted of ≥ 10 patients, 2) the R/S device was fixated using the bony well or tight subperiostal pocket technique without bone-anchoring sutures or screws on the implant, and 3) migration of the R/S device or displacement of the electrode array were described as outcomes.DATA EXTRACTION: Study characteristics, interventions, follow-up, and outcomes were extracted. For critical appraisal, an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies was used.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven studies were included (n = 430 patients). Migration of the R/S device was reported by three studies. Two studies applying the tight pocket technique reported migration rates ranging from 9.0 to 69.2%. One study using the bony bed technique reported migration of 100%, with an average of 2.5 mm. All studies lacked the required standard for comparability, assessment of outcome, and follow-up.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is currently no evidence of a difference between the bony bed- and tight pocket fixation technique, regarding migration of the R/S device or the electrode array, in adult patients.
KW - Cochlear implantation
KW - Electrode migration
KW - Fixation
KW - Sensorineural deafness
KW - Surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112125372&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003108
DO - 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003108
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33710160
SN - 1531-7129
VL - 42
SP - 959
EP - 966
JO - Otology & Neurotology
JF - Otology & Neurotology
IS - 7
ER -