Postoperative radiological assessment of the mastoid facial canal in cochlear implant patients in correlation with facial nerve stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: To correlate the radiological assessment of the mastoid facial canal in postoperative cochlear implant (CI) cone-beam CT (CBCT) and other possible contributing clinical or implant-related factors with postoperative facial nerve stimulation (FNS) occurrence. METHODS: Two experienced radiologists evaluated retrospectively 215 postoperative post-CI CBCT examinations. The mastoid facial canal diameter, wall thickness, distance between the electrode cable and mastoid facial canal, and facial-chorda tympani angle were assessed. Additionally, the intracochlear position and the insertion angle and depth of electrodes were evaluated. Clinical data were analyzed for postoperative FNS within 1.5-year follow-up, CI type, onset, and causes for hearing loss such as otosclerosis, meningitis, and history of previous ear surgeries. Postoperative FNS was correlated with the measurements and clinical data using logistic regression. RESULTS: Within the study population (mean age: 56 ± 18 years), ten patients presented with FNS. The correlations between FNS and facial canal diameter (p = 0.09), wall thickness (p = 0.27), distance to CI cable (p = 0.44), and angle with chorda tympani (p = 0.75) were statistically non-significant. There were statistical significances for previous history of meningitis/encephalitis (p = 0.001), extracochlear-electrode-contacts (p = 0.002), scala-vestibuli position (p = 0.02), younger patients' age (p = 0.03), lateral-wall-electrode type (p = 0.04), and early/childhood onset hearing loss (p = 0.04). Histories of meningitis/encephalitis and extracochlear-electrode-contacts were included in the first two steps of the multivariate logistic regression. CONCLUSION: The mastoid-facial canal radiological assessment and the positional relationship with the CI electrode provide no predictor of postoperative FNS. Histories of meningitis/encephalitis and extracochlear-electrode-contacts are important risk factors. KEY POINTS: • Post-operative radiological assessment of the mastoid facial canal and the positional relationship with the CI electrode provide no predictor of post-cochlear implant facial nerve stimulation. • Radiological detection of extracochlear electrode contacts and the previous clinical history of meningitis/encephalitis are two important risk factors for postoperative facial nerve stimulation in cochlear implant patients. • The presence of scala vestibuli electrode insertion as well as the lateral wall electrode type, the younger patient's age, and early onset of SNHL can play important role in the prediction of post-cochlear implant facial nerve stimulation.

Time of cochlear implant surgery in academic settings.

OBJECTIVE: Establish the time required to perform cochlear implantation (CI) in academic settings. STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING: German and American academic centers. PATIENTS: A total of 2639 patients underwent CI (1997-2007). We excluded patients receiving an experimental device or technique and those with abnormal cochlear anatomy or incomplete charts, leaving 2253 for analysis. INTERVENTION: Unilateral, bilateral, and revision CI with devices approved in the U.S. and Europe. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean surgical time (ST) and total operating room time (TORT). RESULTS: Mixed model analysis was used; estimated marginal means were calculated in minutes after adjusting for random effect of individual surgeon. There were no differences between unilateral (ST = 171, TORT = 245) and revision CI (ST = 160, TORT = 232), but bilateral procedures were longer (ST = 295, TORT = 377, P < 0.001). In unilateral surgeries, Cochlear Limited (CL) devices were implanted faster (ST = 165, TORT = 225) than Advanced Bionics (ABC) (ST = 183, P = 0.001; TORT = 240, P = 0.023) or MedEl (ST = 193, P < 0.001; TORT = 253, P = 0.002) devices. There were no differences for unilateral CI between ABC and MedEl devices. For revision CI, ABC devices (ST = 141, TORT = 219) were implanted faster than CL devices (ST = 181, P = 0.001; TORT = 266, P < 0.001). There were no differences by age group or between Germany and the U.S. ST and TORT were shorter for 575 CIs performed in the final two years of the study (unilateral CI: ST = 145, TORT = 209; bilateral CI: ST = 259, TORT = 330; revision CI: ST = 138, TORT = 205). For unilateral CI, ST and TORT decreased yearly (linear regression, P < 0.001) and inversely correlated with surgeon experience (linear regression, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We report the time required to perform CI in academic settings-data that are vital for cost-benefit analyses and assessing new CI techniques.