Characteristics and pathogenesis of facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implant surgeries: A single‐centre retrospective analysis from 1151 patients

Kim, Yehree; Yoo, Myung Hoon; Lee, Joon Young; Yang, Chan Joo; Park, J.W.; Kang, Byung Chul; Kang, Woo Seok; Ahn, Joong Ho; Chung, Jong Woo; Park, H.J.

doi:10.1111/coa.13153

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…En casos de malformaciones, es probable que la ENF ocurra en la mayoría de los electrodos (Kim et al 2018). A su vez, las malformaciones del propio nervio facial también aumentan las posibilidades de ser estimulado por el IC (Chen et al, 2021).…”

Section: Incidencia Relaciones Anatómicas Y Etiológicasunclassified

“…La ENF se produce cuando el campo eléctrico generado por alguno de los electrodos se propaga e intercepta alguna porción del nervio facial (Kim et al, 2018). Esta estimulación no deseada puede provocar molestias y movimientos ipsilaterales e involuntarios de la cara, alrededor del ojo, la boca, el pliegue nasolabial y la frente (Kelsall et al, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abordaje clínico de la estimulación facial en implantes cocleares

Rosanigo

Vecchio²,

Ausili

2022

Auditio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El implante coclear es actualmente uno de los dispositivos de rehabilitación neurosensoriales más exitosos. El mismo brinda la posibilidad de escuchar en personas con hipoacusias severas a profundas que obtienen limitado acceso a los sonidos con amplificación acústica. Sin embargo, existen complicaciones luego de su implantación, entre las cuales se encuentra la estimulación indeseada del nervio facial. Entre los principales detrimentos que produce la estimulación del nervio facial se encuentran los movimientos involuntarios de cara o cuello, molestia o dolor al usar el implante, entre otros. En algunos casos esto sucede sólo en algunos contactos, pero también puede presentarse en la mayoría o incluso todos los canales de estimulación. El actual abordaje clínico de este problema recurre principalmente a diferentes cambios en la programación del dispositivo. Los recursos para reducirlo abarcan desde cambios en el tipo y modo de la estimulación eléctrica, hasta considerar la reimplantación en casos complejos. El presente artículo describe el problema de la estimulación facial y sus posibles causas, como así también detalla las soluciones clínicas que existen en la actualidad. Por último, se discuten nuevos abordajes y potenciales líneas de investigación.

show abstract

Section: Incidencia Relaciones Anatómicas Y Etiológicasunclassified

Section: Introductionunclassified

Abordaje clínico de la estimulación facial en implantes cocleares

Rosanigo

Vecchio²,

Ausili

2022

Auditio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Factors Influencing Aberrant Facial Nerve Stimulation Following Cochlear Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Horn

Hayden

Mahairas

et al. 2020

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature to evaluate the rate of and associated factors with aberrant facial nerve stimulation (AFNS) following cochlear implantation. Additionally, management strategies for AFNS were assessed. Data Sources: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify peer reviewed research. Study Selection: Eligible studies were those containing peer-reviewed research in English addressing AFNS following cochlear implantation. Studies with paired data were included in the meta-analysis. Data Extraction: Three investigators independently reviewed all articles and extracted data. Bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment Tool. Data Synthesis: Thirty-seven articles were included, representing 5,694 patients. The overall reported AFNS rate was 5.6% (range, 0.68–43%). Array type demonstrated a significant association with AFNS with lateral wall electrodes having a higher odds ratio than perimodiolar electrodes (odds ratio [OR] = 3.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46–10.47, p = 0.01). CI recipients with otosclerosis were also more likely to experience AFNS compared with non-otosclerosis pathology (OR = 13.73, 95% CI 3.57–52.78, p < 0.01). Patients with cochlear malformations had an overall AFNS rate of 28% (range, 5.3–43%) and those with otosclerosis had an overall rate of 26% (range, 6.25–75%). Reprogramming with or without electrode deactivation was successful for AFNS elimination. Four patients of 3,015 required explantation. Conclusion: Array type and underlying cochlear pathology are associated with AFNS and implant reprogramming is an overall successful management strategy. Further research is needed to elucidate mechanism of AFNS and develop management strategies that limit impact on hearing outcomes.

show abstract

Short-Term Experience in Cochlear Implantation with Slim Modiolar Electrode Array (CI532): Comparison to Previous Devices

Park¹,

Kwak²,

Kim³

et al. 2021

Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives There have been no reports in Korea regarding cochlear implant surgeries using Cochlear Nucleus Profile Slim Modiolar electrode [CI532 (Cochlear Ltd.)], as it has been recently released in Korea. We aimed to investigate the short-term results of CI532 and compare them with previous devices with perimodiolar or straight electrodes arrays from the same manufacturer. Subjects and Method From August 2018 to July 2019, 52 patients (26 adults; 26 children) who underwent cochlear implantation of CI532 were included. The intraoperative impedance and evoked compound action potential (ECAP) threshold in each electrode were analyzed and compared with the devices with a perimodiolar electrode array [Contour Advance ® (Cochlear Ltd.)] and a lateral wall electrode array [CI422 and CI522 (Cochlear Ltd.)]. Postoperative changes of hearing thresholds at each frequency (250, 500, and 1000 Hz) and aided word recognition scores (WRS) were also compared. Results CI532 showed significantly lower intraoperative impedance in the basal regions compared to the lateral wall electrode array. The ECAP thresholds of CI532 in the apical electrodes were significantly lower than that in the other two groups. After implantation, CI532 showed a significant preservation of hearing thresholds at most frequencies and showed significantly higher preservation rates than the other electrodes. However, there was no difference between the three groups regarding the postoperative short-term aided WRS. Conclusion CI532 showed lower intraoperative impedances and ECAP thresholds, and better short-term hearing preservation outcomes compared to the other electrodes, suggesting that CI532 electrode might be a better option with less traumatic insertion. However, there was no significant difference in the aided WRS, and further studies with a longer follow-up are necessary to examine the difference of audiologic outcomes.

show abstract

Characteristics and pathogenesis of facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implant surgeries: A single‐centre retrospective analysis from 1151 patients

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Abordaje clínico de la estimulación facial en implantes cocleares

Abordaje clínico de la estimulación facial en implantes cocleares

Factors Influencing Aberrant Facial Nerve Stimulation Following Cochlear Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Short-Term Experience in Cochlear Implantation with Slim Modiolar Electrode Array (CI532): Comparison to Previous Devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About