Speech Recognition Outcomes After Cochlear Reimplantation Surgery

Reis, Mariana; Boisvert, Isabelle; Looi, Valerie; Cruz, María de la

doi:10.1177/2331216517706398

Cited by 24 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this finding considerably exceeded other reported revision rates [4,34], it illustrated the importance of interpreting results with respect to a relevant timeframe. According to our data, the mean time interval between Pri-CI and RCI was 6.6 years, comparable to results of other studies, which reported a mean length of device use before revision of 4.7-6 years [4,16,17,35]. Detailed examination for cases with a long follow-up period (≥10 years) revealed that 24% of the cases underwent RCI within the first 2 years after Pri-CI, 46% within a period of 2-10 years, and the remaining 30% after more than 10 years (Figure 2).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Although declined performance has a profound impact on patients' communication skills and, consequently, on their quality of life, it has received minor attention in the literature and tends to be overlooked in revision studies. With regard to studies that applied a clinical criterion for evaluating a change in performance post-RCI, Reis et al (2017) [17] as well as Mahtani et al (2014) [18] used a criterion of ≥10% change in speech recognition scores for different sentence tests, and reported declined performance in 15.8% and 8% of the RCIs, respectively. Rivas et el.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rates, Indications, and Speech Perception Outcomes of Revision Cochlear Implantations

Sagiv

Yaar-Soffer

Yakir

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revision cochlear implant (RCI) is a growing burden on cochlear implant programs. While reports on RCI rate are frequent, outcome measures are limited. The objectives of the current study were to: (1) evaluate RCI rate, (2) classify indications, (3) delineate the pre-RCI clinical course, and (4) measure surgical and speech perception outcomes, in a large cohort of patients implanted in a tertiary referral center between 1989–2018. Retrospective data review was performed and included patient demographics, medical records, and audiologic outcomes. Results indicated that RCI rate was 11.7% (172/1465), with a trend of increased RCI load over the years. The main indications for RCI were device-related failures (soft-45.4%, hard-23.8%), medical failure (14%), trauma (8.1%), and surgical failure (6.4%). Success rate was 98.8%. Children comprised 78% (134) of the cohort and were more likely than adults to undergo RCI. Most (70%) of the RCIs were performed within 10 years from primary implantation. Speech perception outcome analysis revealed unchanged or improved performance in 85% of the cases and declined performance in 15%. Current findings confirm that RCI is a safe with high clinical efficacy; however, the non-negligible percentage of patients that exhibited declined performance post-RCI should be considered in decision-making processes regarding RCI. Routine follow-up during their first years post-implantation is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rates, Indications, and Speech Perception Outcomes of Revision Cochlear Implantations

Sagiv

Yaar-Soffer

Yakir

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cochlear reimplantation (CR) has been shown to be a safe procedure with outcomes comparable to initial CI performance [Reis et al, 2017]. Revision surgery can be typically elaborate and also accompanied by local pathological changes like middle-ear inflammation/infection, CO after otic capsule violation, and the exposure of ana-Audiol Neurotol 2020;25:323-335 DOI: 10.1159/000507419 tomical structures that puts them at risk.…”

Section: Revision Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Subtotal Petrosectomy Technique in Difficult Cases of Cochlear Implantation

Grinblat

Vlad²,

Caruso³

et al. 2020

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess the validity of the subtotal petrosectomy (STP) technique in problematic cases of cochlear implant (CI) surgery, and review indications, outcomes, and related controversies. Study Design: This is a retrospective review of data from a private quaternary referral center of otology and skull base surgery. Patients and Methods: A review of patients who underwent CI with STP (STP-CI) as the leading approach was performed. Demographics, indications, surgical details, and main outcomes were evaluated. The surgeries performed were usually single-stage procedures encompassing a comprehensive mastoidectomy, blind sac closure of the external auditory canal (EAC), and mastoid obliteration with autologous fat. Results: A total of 107 cases were included. Mean follow-up was 7.1 years (range 1–13 years). The most frequent indication for STP-CI was chronic otitis media with/without cholesteatoma (32.7%), followed by open mastoid cavity (26.1%), and cochlear ossification (17.7%). Other difficult conditions where STP facilitates successful implantation include inner-ear malformations, temporal-bone trauma, unfavorable anatomic conditions, and revision surgery. A planned staged procedure was performed in 3 cases. The rate of major complications was 5.6% (n = 6). Three patients developed postauricular wound dehiscence which eventually resulted in device extrusion. No cases of recurrent/entrapped cholesteatoma, EAC breakdown, or meningitis were encountered. This is the largest single-center series of STP-CI reported in the literature. Conclusions: When CI is intended in technically challenging cases or associated with a high risk of complications, STP is effective and reliable. Safe implantation and excellent long-term outcomes can be achieved provided surgical steps are properly followed. Single-stage procedures can be performed in most cases, even when there is active middle-ear disease.

show abstract

“…Due to increased awareness about the benefits of cochlear implantation and recipients living longer following implantation, the prevalence of reimplantation is increasing. Reis, Boisvert, Looi, and da Cruz (2017) report on speech recognition outcomes before and after cochlear reimplantation to assess the safety and success of this type of surgery. Another study explores the potential benefits of bilateral over unilateral cochlear implants ( Rana et al., 2017 ), demonstrating that both speech comprehension and spatial release from masking are improved in bilaterally implanted adults.…”

Section: Overview Of Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing the Australian Hearing Hub

McAlpine

McMahon²,

Dillon

et al. 2017

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue contains a collection of papers highlighting the collaborative research taking place at Macquarie University’s Australian Hearing Hub. Included in this introduction is a brief outline of the challenges in the hearing health and communication space and a brief description of the Australian Hearing Hub and its members, alongside an overview of the studies included in this special issue.

show abstract

Speech Recognition Outcomes After Cochlear Reimplantation Surgery

Cited by 24 publications

References 28 publications

Rates, Indications, and Speech Perception Outcomes of Revision Cochlear Implantations

Rates, Indications, and Speech Perception Outcomes of Revision Cochlear Implantations

Evaluation of Subtotal Petrosectomy Technique in Difficult Cases of Cochlear Implantation

Introducing the Australian Hearing Hub

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About