Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
Approach to Cochlear Implantation in Patients With Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Macielak Robert J, Selleck Anne Morgan, Kocharyan Armine, Hunter Jacob B, Patro Ankita, Perkins Elizabeth L, Hamilton Christopher A, Patel Neil S, Gurgel Richard K, Sweeney Alex D, Brown Kevin D, Link Michael J, Carlson Matthew L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts to inform clinical practice.
STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral centers.
METHODS: A multi-institutional historical cohort of patients with VP shunts and CI was identified and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 46 patients (median age 8 years [interquratile range, IQR: 2-46]) with VP shunts and CI were identified. Of these, 41 (89%) patients had a VP shunt prior to CI. Based on institutional preference and individual patient factors, CI was performed contralateral to a pre-existing VP shunt in 24 of these 41 cases (59%) and ipsilateral in 17 (41%). Furthermore, pre-CI relocation of the VP shunt was performed in 3 cases (7%), and 2 patients (5%) underwent planned revision of their VP shunt concurrent with CI. In total, 2 of 27 pediatric patients (7%) required unanticipated revision shunt surgery, both contralateral to CI device placement, given VP shunt malfunction. One of 19 adult patients (5%) required shunt revision during CI due to shunt damage noted intraoperatively. Among 43 patients with available follow-up, 38 (88%) are regular CI users, with a median consonant-nucleus vowel-consonant word: score of 58% (IQR: 28-72).
CONCLUSION: CI can be performed at low risk, either contralateral or ipsilateral, to a VP shunt, and does not mandate shunt revision in most cases. Additional considerations regarding CI receiver-stimulator placement are necessary with programmable shunts to mitigate device interaction. Preoperative planning, including coordination of care with neurosurgery, is important to achieving optimal outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral centers.
METHODS: A multi-institutional historical cohort of patients with VP shunts and CI was identified and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 46 patients (median age 8 years [interquratile range, IQR: 2-46]) with VP shunts and CI were identified. Of these, 41 (89%) patients had a VP shunt prior to CI. Based on institutional preference and individual patient factors, CI was performed contralateral to a pre-existing VP shunt in 24 of these 41 cases (59%) and ipsilateral in 17 (41%). Furthermore, pre-CI relocation of the VP shunt was performed in 3 cases (7%), and 2 patients (5%) underwent planned revision of their VP shunt concurrent with CI. In total, 2 of 27 pediatric patients (7%) required unanticipated revision shunt surgery, both contralateral to CI device placement, given VP shunt malfunction. One of 19 adult patients (5%) required shunt revision during CI due to shunt damage noted intraoperatively. Among 43 patients with available follow-up, 38 (88%) are regular CI users, with a median consonant-nucleus vowel-consonant word: score of 58% (IQR: 28-72).
CONCLUSION: CI can be performed at low risk, either contralateral or ipsilateral, to a VP shunt, and does not mandate shunt revision in most cases. Additional considerations regarding CI receiver-stimulator placement are necessary with programmable shunts to mitigate device interaction. Preoperative planning, including coordination of care with neurosurgery, is important to achieving optimal outcomes.