Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the complication rate in adult subjects with open cavities that were implanted with the Vibrant Soundbridge implant, using the round window (RW) vibroplasty procedure.
Methods
From 2009 to 2014, 21 adult subjects with mixed hearing loss, all with sequel from open tympanoplasty surgery, underwent RW vibroplasty (RW-VPL). Surgical complications were recorded and a standard minimal approach was used as a basis for all the cases that needed revision.
Results
The mean follow-up was 42 months (range 12–76). Complications occurred in nearly half of the cases and included: cable extrusion (23.8%), hardware failure (14.3%), profound hearing loss (9.5%), and inadequate RW coupling (9.5%). A minimal endaural approach (MEA) was used in the majority of the cases (86.7%), while the extended endaural approach was adopted for those patients requiring explantation with or without replacement (14.3%).
Conclusions
RW-VPL can be considered a possible option for the rehabilitation of auditory impairment derived from an open tympanoplasty procedure due to cholesteatoma. The procedure may lead to minor/major complications that may require a surgical revision. By adopting an MEA, it has been possible to manage all the situations in which functionality of the device is worth being preserved.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beltrame AM, Martini A, Prosser S, Giarbini N, Streitberger C (2009) Coupling the Vibrant Soundbridge to cochlea round window: auditory results in patients with mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 30:194–201
Colletti V, Soli SD, Carner M, Colletti L (2006) Treatment of mixed hearing losses via implantation of a vibratory transducer on the round window. Int J Audiol 45(10):600–608
Lassaletta L, Calvino M, Sánchez-Cuadrado I, Pérez-Mora RM, Muñoz E, Gavilán J (2015) Pros and cons of round window vibroplasty in open cavities: audiological, surgical, and quality of life outcomes. Otol Neurotol 36:944–952
Mojallal H, Schwab B, Hinze AL, Giere T, Lenarz T (2015) Retrospective audiological analysis of bone conduction versus round window vibratory stimulation in patients with mixed hearing loss. Int J Audiol 54:391–400
Barbara M, Volpini L, Ciotti M, Filippi C, Covelli E, Monini S, D’Ambrosio F (2015) Cone beam computed tomography after round window vibroplasty: do the radiological findings match the auditory outcome? Acta Otolaryngol 135:369–375
Perez R, Adelman C, Chordekar S, de Jong MA, Sohmer H (2014) The mechanism of direct stimulation of the cochlea by vibrating the round window. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 25:273–276
Zwartenkot JW, Mulder JJS, Snik AFM, Mylanus EAM (2016) Active middle ear implantation: longterm medical and technical follow-up, implant survival and complication. Otol Neurotol 37:513–519
Böheim K, Mlynski R, Lenarz T, Schlögel M, Hagen R (2012) Round window vibroplasty: long-term results. Acta Otolaryngol 132:1042–1048
Colletti V, Mandalà M, Colletti L (2012) Electrocochleography in round window Vibrant Soundbridge implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 146:633–640
Verhaert N, Mojallal H, Schwab B (2013) Indications and outcome of subtotal petrosectomy for active middle ear implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:1243–1248
Linder T, Schlegel C, DeMin N, van der Westhuizen S (2009) Active middle ear implants in patients undergoing subtotal petrosectomy: new application for the Vibrant Soundbridge device and its implication for lateral cranium base surgery. Otol Neurotol 30:41–47
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barbara, M., Volpini, L., Covelli, E. et al. Complications after round window vibroplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276, 1601–1605 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05402-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05402-y