Cochlear Implantation ; Cochlear Implants/adverse effects* ; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/surgery* ; Humans ; Tinnitus/surgery* ; Treatment Outcome

Electrode array misplacement is a rare complication of cochlear implant. This article reports an 11-year-old boy who was mistakenly implanted the cochlear electrode array into the superior semicircular canal during the initial cochlear implant. After the diagnosis was confirmed, he underwent a second cochlear implant and the electrode array were successfully implanted into the cochlea. This article conducted a systematic review of the literature on electrode array misplacement, and the causes of electrode array misplacement were analyzed from different implantation position.
Male ; Humans ; Child ; Electrodes, Implanted ; Reoperation ; Cochlea ; Cochlear Implantation ; Cochlear Implants/adverse effects* ; Semicircular Canals/surgery*

OBJECTIVETo approach the incidence rate, symptoms, etiologies, correlating reasons, consequences and treatments of local responses caused by implant after cochlear implantation and to provide reference for the future works.

METHODSFrom 1995 to 2007 there were 997 cases adopted cochlear implantation in Peding Union Medical College Hospital. Ten cases experienced local responses were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTSThe incidence of local response was 1.003%. There were 6 males and 4 females. The ages were between 13 months to 8 years old. The average age was 34 months. The devices mainly were made by Cochlear and Med-EL companies. The mainly symptoms and signs were local swellings, complaint of pruritus after ear, decrease of sound legibility and so on. Onset frequencies of this disease was 1 to 8 times. The bacterium cultured of displacing liquids was negative. But the IgE was detected in 2 cases. Results showed the patients were midrange status of hypersensitivity. Positive conservative treatments must be done including antibiotics, antihistamines, necessarily using immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONSBesides local infection of bacteria, the allergy caused by silicone of implant coupled be a reason. Although the diagnose of this disease was difficult, but the screening of source of hypersensitivity was necessary before operation. It was recurrent attacks and maybe liable by kindred patients. Onset age was more below 4 years old. The patch test should be done again when the symptoms were occurrence after operation. If severe secondary infection was occurred and the states could not be well controlled the devices in the body must be explanted immediately. When the conditions were stable reimplantation could be experienced by non-sensibilisinogen devices.

Child ; Child, Preschool ; Cochlear Implantation ; adverse effects ; Cochlear Implants ; adverse effects ; Female ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; etiology ; Infant ; Male ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies

This study compared long-term speech performance after cochlear implantation (CI) between surgical strategies in patients with chronic otitis media (COM). Thirty patients with available open-set sentence scores measured more than 2 yr postoperatively were included: 17 who received one-stage surgeries (One-stage group), and the other 13 underwent two-stage surgeries (Two-stage group). Preoperative inflammatory status, intraoperative procedures, postoperative outcomes were compared. Among 17 patients in One-stage group, 12 underwent CI accompanied with the eradication of inflammation; CI without eradicating inflammation was performed on 3 patients; 2 underwent CIs via the transcanal approach. Thirteen patients in Two-stage group received the complete eradication of inflammation as first-stage surgery, and CI was performed as second-stage surgery after a mean interval of 8.2 months. Additional control of inflammation was performed in 2 patients at second-stage surgery for cavity problem and cholesteatoma, respectively. There were 2 cases of electrode exposure as postoperative complication in the two-stage group; new electrode arrays were inserted and covered by local flaps. The open-set sentence scores of Two-stage group were not significantly higher than those of One-stage group at 1, 2, 3, and 5 yr postoperatively. Postoperative long-term speech performance is equivalent when either of two surgical strategies is used to treat appropriately selected candidates.
Adult ; Aged ; Cholesteatoma, Middle Ear/epidemiology ; Chronic Disease/therapy ; Cochlear Implantation/*adverse effects ; Cochlear Implants/*adverse effects ; Female ; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/*surgery ; Humans ; Inflammation/epidemiology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Otitis Media/*surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; *Speech Articulation Tests ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effect of cochlear implantation with REZ-I straight electrodes on residual hearing of postlingually deafened adults, and to explore the audiologically safety and injury characteristics of cochlear implantation.

METHODSSixteen unilateral REZ-I (22 channels) cochlear implantation recipients from September 2009 to December 2009 were picked out. Their pre-and post-implantation audiometry data including pure-tone audiometry (PTA), auditory steady-state responses (ASSR), auditory brainstem responses (ABR) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) were retrospectively analyzed, in order to compare the change between pre- and post-implantation residual hearing.

RESULTSAmong the 12 recipients who had some measurable residual hearing before implantation, 5 (41.6%) patients had conserved some measurable hearing but the other 7 (58.4%) recipients had lost all measurable hearing after implantation on the implanted side. The implanted ears had an average PTA threshold drop of 9.5 dB HL and a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-implantation (P < 0.05) PTA thresholds in the frequencies of 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz. Compared to non-implanted ears, the drop in 500 Hz and 1kHz had a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-implantation PTA thresholds (P < 0.05). The ASSR residual hearing threshold elevation were statistically significant (P < 0.05) between pre- and post-implantation ASSR at 250 Hz and 500 Hz on the implanted side, while the The ASSR residual hearing threshold elevation were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at 500 Hz when compared to non-implanted side. The difference of residual hearing between pre- and post-implantation was not statistically significant for both DPOAE and ABR.

CONCLUSIONThere will be a certain degree of damage to residual hearing of the implanted side following REZ-I cochlear implantation.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Audiometry, Pure-Tone ; Cochlear Implantation ; adverse effects ; Cochlear Implants ; Deafness ; physiopathology ; surgery ; Evoked Potentials, Auditory ; Female ; Hearing ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult