Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Cochlear Implantation and Conventional Cochlear Implantation

CHEN Shiqin; HU Jinwang

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-2922.2016.03.009

Abstract：Objective To compare clinical outcomes between minimally invasive cochlear implantation and conven-tional cochlear implantation, and to investigate clinical advantages of minimally invasive cochlear implantation. Methods One hundred and twenty one cases were retrospective analyzed and divided into a minimally invasive group and a conven-tional group based on the type of surgeries they underwent. Surgery time, electrodes insertion time and number of trials, inci-sion size and postoperative complications were compared and analyzed. Results Implantation was successful in all cases. Surgery time was 89.53±12.42 minutes in the minimally invasive group and 92.30±14.16 minutes in the conventional group (P>0.05), and electrode insertion time was 112.16 ± 16.01 seconds and 117.05 ± 26.90 seconds (P>0.05), respectively. Aver-age number of electrodes insertion trials were 1.07±0.26 and 1.22 ± 0.49 for the two groups (P<0.05). The length of incision of the minimally invasive group (2.53±0.12 cm) was shorter than that of the conventional group (8.30 ± 0.56 cm) (P<0.05). Subcutaneous hematoma occurred in 3 cases (4.76%) in the conventional group, but none in the minimally invasive group, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The rate of postoperative vertigo in the two groups was 5.88%and 21.83%respectively, lower in the minimally invasive group (P<0.05). Conclusions Mini-mally invasive cochlear implantation does not increase surgery time but can ensure insertion of electrode in the scala tym-pani. Its other benefits include better cosmetic appearance, smaller incision, less surgical trauma and lower rates of compli-cations.