Complications after round window vibroplasty.
Aged
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural
/ surgery
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Otologic Surgical Procedures
/ instrumentation
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Prosthesis Implantation
/ instrumentation
Reoperation
Round Window, Ear
/ surgery
Treatment Outcome
Tympanoplasty
Vibration
Active middle ear implant
Mixed hearing loss
Open tympanoplasty
Revision surgery
Round window coupling
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
28
11
2018
accepted:
20
03
2019
pubmed:
28
3
2019
medline:
10
8
2019
entrez:
28
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the complication rate in adult subjects with open cavities that were implanted with the Vibrant Soundbridge implant, using the round window (RW) vibroplasty procedure. From 2009 to 2014, 21 adult subjects with mixed hearing loss, all with sequel from open tympanoplasty surgery, underwent RW vibroplasty (RW-VPL). Surgical complications were recorded and a standard minimal approach was used as a basis for all the cases that needed revision. The mean follow-up was 42 months (range 12-76). Complications occurred in nearly half of the cases and included: cable extrusion (23.8%), hardware failure (14.3%), profound hearing loss (9.5%), and inadequate RW coupling (9.5%). A minimal endaural approach (MEA) was used in the majority of the cases (86.7%), while the extended endaural approach was adopted for those patients requiring explantation with or without replacement (14.3%). RW-VPL can be considered a possible option for the rehabilitation of auditory impairment derived from an open tympanoplasty procedure due to cholesteatoma. The procedure may lead to minor/major complications that may require a surgical revision. By adopting an MEA, it has been possible to manage all the situations in which functionality of the device is worth being preserved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30915542
doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05402-y
pii: 10.1007/s00405-019-05402-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1601-1605Références
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Apr;146(4):633-40
pubmed: 22140205
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Jun;37(5):513-9
pubmed: 27023016
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Jul;36(6):944-52
pubmed: 25839978
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Mar;270(4):1243-8
pubmed: 22829158
Acta Otolaryngol. 2012 Oct;132(10):1042-8
pubmed: 22779784
Otol Neurotol. 2009 Feb;30(2):194-201
pubmed: 19180678
Int J Audiol. 2006 Oct;45(10):600-8
pubmed: 17062502
Otol Neurotol. 2009 Jan;30(1):41-7
pubmed: 18849883
J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2014 Sep;25(3):273-6
pubmed: 25046313
Acta Otolaryngol. 2015 Apr;135(4):369-75
pubmed: 25743084
Int J Audiol. 2015 Jun;54(6):391-400
pubmed: 25735204