A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Post-Cochlear Implant Vestibular Dysfunction: Round Window Versus Standard Cochleostomy Approaches.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Abdullah F Alharbi, Hassan Alalawi, Abdulsalam Alqutub, Hisham B Alem, Afnan F Bukhari, Manal A Khoja, Faisal Zawawi
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Post-Cochlear Implant Vestibular Dysfunction: Round Window Versus Standard Cochleostomy Approaches.","authors":"Abdullah F Alharbi, Hassan Alalawi, Abdulsalam Alqutub, Hisham B Alem, Afnan F Bukhari, Manal A Khoja, Faisal Zawawi","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Two main techniques for cochlear implantation (CI) are commonly used: the standard cochleostomy (SCA) and the round window approach (RWA). Initially, the RWA was more utilized, followed by the SCA for cases with challenging visualization. Recent studies show that RWA is preferred due to SCA's risk of damaging cochlear structures.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aim to compare post-CI complications between the RWA and SCA approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five electronic databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Eligibility screening was performed to determine inclusion criteria, and data extraction from the selected studies was conducted independently. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as rate ratios (RR) and standard errors (SE), with significance determined by a p value >0.05 between CI subgroups. The generic inverse variance analysis method was applied with the employment of the random-effect model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our systematic review encompassed 82 studies, of which 58 were eligible for meta-analysis. Vertigo was documented in 10% of instances utilizing the RWA technique and in 8% of cases using the SCA method. Likewise, dizziness was noted in 18% of RWA cases and in 14% of SCA cases. The overall incidence of vestibular complications was 36% for RWA and 17% for SCA. However, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between these approaches (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the RWA and the SCA approaches demonstrate comparable post-CI complication profiles concerning dizziness, vertigo, and overall vestibular complications, with the RWA approach showing slightly higher incidences. However, no significant difference was found between the two techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004489","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Two main techniques for cochlear implantation (CI) are commonly used: the standard cochleostomy (SCA) and the round window approach (RWA). Initially, the RWA was more utilized, followed by the SCA for cases with challenging visualization. Recent studies show that RWA is preferred due to SCA's risk of damaging cochlear structures.

Aim: We aim to compare post-CI complications between the RWA and SCA approaches.

Methods: Five electronic databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Eligibility screening was performed to determine inclusion criteria, and data extraction from the selected studies was conducted independently. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as rate ratios (RR) and standard errors (SE), with significance determined by a p value >0.05 between CI subgroups. The generic inverse variance analysis method was applied with the employment of the random-effect model.

Results: Our systematic review encompassed 82 studies, of which 58 were eligible for meta-analysis. Vertigo was documented in 10% of instances utilizing the RWA technique and in 8% of cases using the SCA method. Likewise, dizziness was noted in 18% of RWA cases and in 14% of SCA cases. The overall incidence of vestibular complications was 36% for RWA and 17% for SCA. However, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between these approaches (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Both the RWA and the SCA approaches demonstrate comparable post-CI complication profiles concerning dizziness, vertigo, and overall vestibular complications, with the RWA approach showing slightly higher incidences. However, no significant difference was found between the two techniques.

人工耳蜗植入后前庭功能障碍的系统回顾和荟萃分析:圆窗与标准耳蜗造口方法。
背景:人工耳蜗植入术(CI)主要采用两种技术:标准耳蜗造口术(SCA)和圆窗入路(RWA)。最初,RWA得到了更多的利用,其次是SCA,用于具有挑战性的可视化情况。最近的研究表明,由于SCA有损害耳蜗结构的风险,RWA是首选。目的:我们的目的是比较RWA和SCA方法之间ci后并发症。方法:系统检索5个电子数据库,筛选相关研究。进行资格筛选以确定纳入标准,并从所选研究中独立提取数据。二分类结果合并为比率比(RR)和标准误差(SE), CI亚组间的显著性以p值bb0 0.05确定。采用随机效应模型,采用通用反方差分析方法。结果:我们的系统综述包括82项研究,其中58项符合meta分析。使用RWA技术的实例中有10%记录了眩晕,使用SCA方法的实例中有8%记录了眩晕。同样,18%的RWA病例和14%的SCA病例出现头晕症状。RWA患者前庭并发症的总发生率为36%,SCA患者为17%。但经统计学分析,两种方法间差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。结论:RWA入路和SCA入路在头晕、眩晕和整体前庭并发症方面表现出相似的ci后并发症,RWA入路的发生率略高。然而,两种技术之间没有明显差异。
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
Otology & Neurotology
Otology & Neurotology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
509
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.
×
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