Evaluating Reasons for Revision Surgery and Device Failure Rates in Patients Who Underwent Cochlear Implantation Surgery

被引:34
作者
Kim, So Yeon [1 ]
Kim, Min Bum [2 ]
Chung, Won-ho [2 ]
Cho, Yang-Sun [2 ]
Hong, Sung Hwa [1 ,3 ]
Moon, Il Joon [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Samsung Hearing Lab, Sch Med, Samsung Med Ctr, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Dept Otorhinolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Sch Med, Samsung Med Ctr, 81 Irwon Ro, Seoul 06351, South Korea
[3] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Dept Otorhinolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Sch Med, Samsung Changwon Hosp, Chang Won, South Korea
关键词
REIMPLANTATION;
D O I
10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0030
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
IMPORTANCE Understanding the reasons for cochlear implant (CI) revision surgery and device failure rates is important for clinicians when counseling patients who are considering CI. OBJECTIVES To analyze the revision surgery rate, reasons for revision surgery, and device failure and survival rates of different device models in recipients of CIs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this cohort study, cochlear implants at Samsung Medical Center, a tertiary referral center, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent CI surgery from October 2001 to March 2019 were included. In the device survival analysis, the first revision surgery was considered the primary event, and the end point of observation was June 1, 2019. INTERVENTIONS Therapeutic and rehabilitative CI surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The revision surgery rate, reasons for revision surgery, and the failure and survival rates of different device models were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to present both the device survival and cumulative survival curves with rates. RESULTS In this study, 43 of 925 patients with CIs (4.6%) underwent a revision surgery. Device failure was the most common reason (28 of 43 patients [65%]). Flap-associated problems and migration of the inner device were the next most important reasons (4 of 43 [9.3%] each). Overall, the 10-year cumulative survival rate of CI surgery was 94.4%, and the device survival rate was 96.0%. Thirteen different CI devices from 4 different manufacturers were implanted, and no meaningful differences in device failure were found among CI manufacturers or devices (hazard ratios for cumulative survival: Cochlear, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.72-3.88]; Advanced Bionics, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.61-4.53]; Med-El, reference; hazard ratios for device survival: Cochlear, 1.65 [95% CI, 0.55-4.99]; Advanced Bionics, 1.93 [95% CI, 0.56-6.74]; Med-El, reference). Several recalls were issued by manufacturers during the study period, and after excluding the recalled devices, the device survival rates for 5, 10, and 15 years were 98.2%, 97.7%, and 94.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Generally, implanted devices remain safe and stable for a long time, and no significant differences in survival rates were found between device types or manufacturers. Device failure was the main reason for CI revision, followed by flap-associated problems and migration of the inner device.
引用
收藏
页码:414 / 420
页数:7
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Berrettini S, 2013, ACTA OTORHINOLARYNGO, V33, P56
[2]   Revision cochlear implant surgery in children [J].
Cullen, Robert D. ;
Fayad, Jose N. ;
Luxford, William M. ;
Buchman, Craig A. .
OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2008, 29 (02) :214-220
[3]   Personalised long-term follow-up of cochlear implant patients using remote care, compared with those on the standard care pathway: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial [J].
Cullington, Helen ;
Kitterick, Padraig ;
DeBold, Lisa ;
Weal, Mark ;
Clarke, Nicholas ;
Newberry, Eva ;
Aubert, Lisa .
BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (05)
[4]   Outcomes of cochlear implantation in children with inner ear malformations [J].
Demir, Berat ;
Cesur, Sidika ;
Sahin, Akin ;
Binnetoglu, Adem ;
Ciprut, Ayca ;
Batman, Caglar .
EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2019, 276 (09) :2397-2403
[5]  
Eftekharian Ali, 2014, Cochlear Implants Int, V15, P179, DOI 10.1179/1754762814Y.0000000069
[6]   Cochlear implant complications in 403 patients: Comparative study of adults and children and review of the literature [J].
Farinetti, A. ;
Ben Gharbia, D. ;
Mancini, J. ;
Roman, S. ;
Nicollas, R. ;
Triglia, J. -M. .
EUROPEAN ANNALS OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK DISEASES, 2014, 131 (03) :177-182
[7]  
Health Canada, ARCH NOT CLARION 1 2
[8]   Nucleus N5 CI500 Series Implant Recall: Hard Failure Rate at a Major Cochlear Implantation Center [J].
Hildrew, Douglas M. ;
Molony, Timothy B. .
LARYNGOSCOPE, 2013, 123 (11) :2829-2833
[9]   Analysis of Bacterial Biofilms on a Cochlear Implant Following Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Infection [J].
Im, Gi Jung ;
An, Yun Suk ;
Choi, June ;
Song, Jae Jun ;
Chae, Sung Won ;
Jung, Hak Hyun .
JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, 2015, 19 (03) :172-177
[10]   Assessment of Cochlear Implant Revision Surgeries in a Cohort of 802 Patients [J].
Karamert, Recep ;
Duzlu, Mehmet ;
Tutar, Hakan ;
Eravci, Fakih Cihat ;
Turkcan, Alper Kutalmis ;
Zorlu, Mehmet Ekrem ;
Ugur, Mehmet Birol ;
Cebeci, Suleyman ;
Ustun, Selin ;
Cevizci, Rasit ;
Bayazit, Yildirim Ahmet .
OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY, 2019, 40 (04) :464-470