Effectiveness of endoscopy in cochlear implantation.

Luis M Méndez-Saucedo, Francisco J Mancilla-Mejía, Laura Serrano-Salinas, Abraham Hernández-Mundo, Tania M Hernández-Alva, Marisol Mejía-Ángeles, Miriam Camacho-Olivares, Sandra L Aguilar-Vázquez, Rocío Salinas-Ángeles, Silvia L Dirzo-Cuevas, Edgar A García-Rodríguez, Cindy Bandala
{"title":"Effectiveness of endoscopy in cochlear implantation.","authors":"Luis M Méndez-Saucedo, Francisco J Mancilla-Mejía, Laura Serrano-Salinas, Abraham Hernández-Mundo, Tania M Hernández-Alva, Marisol Mejía-Ángeles, Miriam Camacho-Olivares, Sandra L Aguilar-Vázquez, Rocío Salinas-Ángeles, Silvia L Dirzo-Cuevas, Edgar A García-Rodríguez, Cindy Bandala","doi":"10.24875/CIRU.21000908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine the effectiveness of endoscopy in cochlear implantation as compared to microscopy.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Study comparing microscopy and endoscopy in cochlear implant placement in 34 patients (23 endoscopic implants and 20 implants via microscopy), between 2014 and 2019, at the Centro Medico Naval, Mexico City. The study was performed under informed consent and according to the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 34 patients, 12 were children or adolescents and 22 were adults. The visualization of the round window classified via microscopy per St. Thomas Hospital's classification showed that type IIB prevailed in 30.2% of patients, and type III in 41.9%, and when using the endoscope, the round window was observed in full in 82.6% of patients (type I), and type IIA was only observed in 17.4% (four patients). The number of attempts made to place the cochlear implant was greater with the microscope. The time to insertion of the electrode was 1.6 minutes. No differences were observed (p > 0.05) in the number of inpatient days. Cochleostomy was more frequent when using the microscope.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endoscopy is an effective resource in cochlear implantation for posterior tympanotomy, with no complications observed, offering greater safety in inserting the electrode through the round window.</p>","PeriodicalId":93936,"journal":{"name":"Cirugia y cirujanos","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cirugia y cirujanos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24875/CIRU.21000908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Determine the effectiveness of endoscopy in cochlear implantation as compared to microscopy.

Method: Study comparing microscopy and endoscopy in cochlear implant placement in 34 patients (23 endoscopic implants and 20 implants via microscopy), between 2014 and 2019, at the Centro Medico Naval, Mexico City. The study was performed under informed consent and according to the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).

Results: Of the 34 patients, 12 were children or adolescents and 22 were adults. The visualization of the round window classified via microscopy per St. Thomas Hospital's classification showed that type IIB prevailed in 30.2% of patients, and type III in 41.9%, and when using the endoscope, the round window was observed in full in 82.6% of patients (type I), and type IIA was only observed in 17.4% (four patients). The number of attempts made to place the cochlear implant was greater with the microscope. The time to insertion of the electrode was 1.6 minutes. No differences were observed (p > 0.05) in the number of inpatient days. Cochleostomy was more frequent when using the microscope.

Conclusions: Endoscopy is an effective resource in cochlear implantation for posterior tympanotomy, with no complications observed, offering greater safety in inserting the electrode through the round window.

人工耳蜗植入术中内窥镜检查的效果。
目的:与显微镜检查相比,确定内窥镜检查在人工耳蜗植入术中的有效性:确定内窥镜与显微镜在人工耳蜗植入术中的效果:2014年至2019年期间,在墨西哥城海军医疗中心对34名患者(23名通过内窥镜植入,20名通过显微镜植入)进行了人工耳蜗植入术中显微镜和内窥镜的比较研究。研究是在知情同意的情况下进行的,符合国际医学科学组织理事会(CIOMS)的规定:在 34 名患者中,12 人为儿童或青少年,22 人为成年人。根据圣托马斯医院的分类,通过显微镜观察圆窗的情况显示,30.2%的患者属于 IIB 型,41.9%的患者属于 III 型,而在使用内窥镜时,82.6%的患者(I 型)能完全观察到圆窗,只有 17.4%的患者(4 名患者)属于 IIA 型。使用显微镜时,尝试植入人工耳蜗的次数更多。插入电极的时间为 1.6 分钟。住院天数无差异(P>0.05)。使用显微镜时,蜗壳造口术的频率更高:结论:内窥镜是鼓室后切口人工耳蜗植入术的有效手段,未发现并发症,通过圆窗插入电极更安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信