Cochlear implant extrusion secondary to keloid formation

Loochtan, Michael J.; Yang, Shiayin F.; Mantravadi, Avinash V.; Marzo, Sam J.

doi:10.1179/1754762814y.0000000078

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If hypersensitivity patients show no response to treatment with antibiotics, and wound cultures are negative for bacterial growth, skin patch testing to the silicone components of the implants could be performed to demonstrate sensitivity. 13 In our case all the allergy tests were negative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Implantable Audiologic Devices and Facial Plastic Surgery in Elderly Patients

Echegaray¹

2017

MOJGG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The goal of this paper is to describe a previously unreported etiology for audiologic implant extrusion. It is necessary to place the implant closer to the cochlea for the correct conduction of the sound. This paper represents the first reported case of audiologic device extrusion secondary to previous rhytidectomy. Material and methods:We present a case report of a 69-year-old patient with a history of rhytidectomy for aesthetic reasons 15 years ago. He was underwent transcutaneous active osseointegrated insertion, approximately 5 months later developed a 2 cm post-auricular soft tissue necrosis and partial extrusion. It was required a surgical intervention to solve the problem.Results: Exposure of otological implants requires medical/surgical intervention with antibiotic therapy, with or without replacement of such devices as well as the realization of rotational flaps to cover the skin defects. Conclusion:Previous periauricular surgery such as a parotidectomy or a rhytidectomy should be considered when select a patient to implant an otological device. In the case of osseointegrated implants, the percutaneous device could cause more skin problems than the transcutaneous one, which would lead us to choose one over another. In case of cochlear implants, should be located more posterior, away from the conflicting retroauricular area. Obviously as older as our patients get, higher are the chances to suffer those kind of complications. This complication has not been described previously, and should be analyzed in the preoperatory time in order to avoid bad results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Implantable Audiologic Devices and Facial Plastic Surgery in Elderly Patients

Echegaray¹

2017

MOJGG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If patients show no response to antibiotic treatment and wound cultures are negative for bacterial growth, skin patch testing to the silicone components of the implants could be performed to demonstrate sensitivity. 19 Despite efforts to prevent and improve the management of these complications, post-operative wound infection and skin dehiscence is a dreaded complication. Depending on the severity of the infection, and despite rigorous medical and surgical efforts to eradicate the infection, it can still lead to device removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervicofacial surgery and implantable hearing device extrusion: management of challenging cases

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To describe our management of implantable hearing device extrusion in cases of previous cervicofacial surgery. Methods A review was conducted of a retrospectively acquired database of surgical procedures for implantable hearing devices performed at our department between January 2011 and December 2019. Cases of device extrusion and previous cervicofacial surgery are included. Medical and surgical management is discussed. Results Four cases of implant extrusion following cervicofacial surgery were identified: one involving a Bonebridge system and three involving cochlear implants. In all cases, antibiotic treatment was administered and surgical debridement performed. The same Bonebridge system was implanted in the middle fossa. The three cochlear implants were removed, and new devices were implanted in a more posterior region. Conclusion Previous cervicofacial surgery is a risk factor for hearing implant extrusion. The middle fossa approach is the best option for the Bonebridge system. Regarding the cochlear implant, it is always suitable to place it in a more posterior area. An inferiorly based fascio-muscular flap may be a good option to reduce the risk of extrusion.

show abstract

“…Innovative soft tissue coverage techniques have been described in the cochlear implantation literature targeted at management of patients with cochlear implant exposure. [5][6][7][8] Rotational flaps described for soft tissue coverage include full thickness scalp 7,8 and temporalis muscle 8 as options. Scalp tissue could be rotated to cover a bone-anchored hearing aid defect in a number of directions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone‐anchored hearing aid and skin graft removal with subsequent cochlear implantation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a novel technique of scalp flap rearrangement for cochlear implant (CI) candidates who have previously undergone ipsilateral bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) placement. One patient with single-sided deafness (SSD) underwent removal of a BAHA with subsequent scalp rearrangement for coverage of the implant site. After adequate healing of the scalp rotational flap, he underwent uncomplicated cochlear implantation without soft tissue complications. With increasing utilization of CIs in SSD, there will be more patients undergoing cochlear implantation who have previously had a BAHA. We present a novel method for accomplishing this goal while minimizing the risk of soft tissue complications. Laryngoscope, 126:2601-2604, 2016.

show abstract

Cochlear implant extrusion secondary to keloid formation

Abstract: Cochlear implant extrusion is a rare complication which has been attributed to various causes. This report identifies keloid formation as another possible source.

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Implantable Audiologic Devices and Facial Plastic Surgery in Elderly Patients

Implantable Audiologic Devices and Facial Plastic Surgery in Elderly Patients

Cervicofacial surgery and implantable hearing device extrusion: management of challenging cases

Bone‐anchored hearing aid and skin graft removal with subsequent cochlear implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About