Failure and Revision Surgery After Cochlear Implantation in the Adult Population: A 10-year Single-institution Retrospective and Systematic Review of the Literature
- PMID: 33351564
- DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002940
Failure and Revision Surgery After Cochlear Implantation in the Adult Population: A 10-year Single-institution Retrospective and Systematic Review of the Literature
Abstract
Objective: To characterize failure rate and etiology after cochlear implantation; to identify predictors and describe outcomes after implant failure.
Study design: Retrospective chart review and systematic review of the literature using PubMed and Embase.
Setting: Academic Cochlear Implant Center.
Subject population: Four hundred ninety-eight devices in 439 distinct adult patients.
Interventions: Unilateral or bilateral cochlear implantation.
Main outcome measures: Implant failure rate and etiology.
Results: A total of 32 devices (5.9%) failed in 31 patients encompassing the following failure types in accordance with the European Consensus Statement of Cochlear Implants: 17 device failures (53.1%), 11 failures due to performance decrement/adverse reactions (34.4%), and 4 medical reasons (12.9%). There was no significant difference in age, sex, or manufacturer between patients with and without failures. Twenty-five percent of patients with failure leading to explantation had childhood onset of deafness compared to 12.1% of patients with adult-onset hearing loss (OR = 2.42; p = 0.04). Performance decrement/adverse reaction patients had an older average age at implantation compared to device failure patients (mean 68.5 yr 95% CI: 59.9-77.1 vs mean 47.6 yr, CI: 39.9-55.3, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to failure, sex, or device manufacturer between the different types of failures. Twenty-nine patients who experienced CI failure underwent a revision surgery, while the remaining two opted for explantation without reimplantation. One patient who underwent revision surgery subsequently presented with a second failure and underwent a second revision, which was successful.In our systematic review, 815 citations were reviewed, and 9 studies were selected for inclusion. Overall failure rate across all studies was 5.5%. Device failure was the leading cause of failure in the majority (6/9) of studies, accounting for 40.8% of all failures. Medical reasons were the second leading cause at 33.6%, followed by performance decrement/adverse reaction (20.9%) and other (4.8%).
Conclusions: Cochlear implant failure is a rare phenomenon. Childhood-onset of hearing loss appears to be associated with an increased risk of overall failure. Older patients are at increased risk for performance decrement/adverse reaction. Revision surgery success rates remain very high and patients with failure of any cause should be offered explantation with concurrent reimplantation.
Copyright © 2020, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Fakurnejad S, Vail D, Song Y, Alyono J, Blevins NH. Trends in age of cochlear implant recipients, and the impact on perioperative complication rates. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41:438–443.
-
- Sunde J, Webb JB, Moore PC, Gluth MB, Dornhoffer JL. Cochlear implant failure, revision, and reimplantation. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34:1670–1674.
-
- Buchman CA, Higgins CA, Cullen R, et al. Revision cochlear implant surgery in adult patients with suspected device malfunction. Otol Neurotol 2004; 25:504–510.
-
- O’Donoghue G. European consensus statement on cochlear implant failures and explantations. Otol Neurotol 2005; 26:1097–1099.
-
- Côté M, Ferron P, Bergeron F, Bussières R. Cochlear reimplantation: Causes of failure, outcomes, and audiologic performance. Laryngoscope 2007; 117:1225–1235.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
