Minimal access surgery for the Symphonix/Med-El Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear hearing implant.
OBJECTIVE
To develop a minimal access approach for implantation of the Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear hearing implant. This approach ideally uses the smallest skin incision possible, minimal or no hair shave, and the least possible amount of tissue and bone manipulation. This will facilitate the acceptability of the procedure to the general community and reduce the flap-related complication rate. The procedure is similar to the minimal access approach described for cochlear implantation.


METHODS
Eight patients with various degrees of sensorineural hearing loss and one with a mixed hearing loss who met implant criteria for the Vibrant Soundbridge middle ear hearing implant received the device over a 42-month period. The first two patients underwent the traditional implant procedure with postauricular hair shave, postauricular S-shaped incision, and implant receiver suture fixation to the temporal bone. The following seven consecutive patients received a progressively smaller C-shaped postauricular skin incision, no hair shave, retrograde skull drilling for the implant seat, and no implant suture fixation until the technique closely approximated the minimal access cochlear implant procedure. Postoperative performance of the Soundbridge/Vibrant Med-El was evaluated through audiology testing and subjective patient reports.


METHODS
Private neurotology clinic and tertiary care teaching hospital.


RESULTS
The technique was feasible in all patients. Follow-up for the minimal access group ranged from 3 years to 5 months. There were no complications related to the approach, and all patients were satisfied users of the implant. The lack of hair shave and small incision size was greatly appreciated and warmly endorsed by the patients.


CONCLUSIONS
The Vibrant Soundbridge/Vibrant Med-El can be safely implanted using the minimal access method that has been popularized for cochlear implant surgery. A large incision, extensive hair shave, risk of flap necrosis, and possibility of unsightly scar may deter patients from pursuing the potential benefits of implanted hearing technology. The technique may make the device more accessible to individuals who have concerns regarding cosmetics and potential flap complications.
Foyt
David
D
Northeast Ear Institute, Albany, New York 12203, USA. albanyeardoc@yahoo.com
Carfrae
Matthew
M
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods; D009998:Ossicular Prosthesis; D019933:Ossicular Replacement / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome