Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2012 Sep-Oct;63(5):327-31. doi: 10.1016/j.otorri.2012.01.012. Epub 2012 Mar 16.

Comparison of complications by technique used in cochlear implants.

[Article in English, Spanish]

Author information

1
Sanatorio Allende, Córdoba, Argentina. mario.zernotti@gmail.com

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Complications are a very sensitive indicator of the usefulness of a surgical technique. In cochlear implant surgery, there are 3 principal approaches: the classic approach uses the facial recess (FR), the suprameatal approach (SMA) does not require mastoidectomy and uses the creation of a tunnel over the facial nerve to enter the middle ear, and the endomeatal approach (EMA) is based on the completion of a groove in the posterior wall of external auditory canal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

A multicentre review of 208 patients with cochlear implants, comparing the different techniques. The complications were classified into major and minor.

RESULTS:

Among the 208 implanted patients, 10.5% (22 of 208) had complications. Of these, 2.88% (6 of 208) were major complications and 7.69% (16 of 208) were minor complications. Comparing the results obtained by the different approaches, the FR technique had the lowest rate of major complications (1.1%), followed by the EMA technique with 2.38% and SMA with 3.75%. As for minor complications, operations in the SMA group had the lowest rate (6.25%), followed by the EMA group (7.14%) and the group operated on using the FR technique presented the highest (10%).

CONCLUSIONS:

The 3 techniques described show very similar rates of complications. Consequently, we can conclude that they are safe and are alternatives.

PMID:
22425203
DOI:
10.1016/j.otorri.2012.01.012
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Ediciones Doyma, S.L.
    Loading ...
    Support Center