ÖZ
Amaç
Subperiostal cep tekniği (SPT), operasyon süresini kısaltma ve komplikasyonları azaltma potansiyeli nedeniyle koklear implantasyon (Kİ) cerrahisinde yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, tekniği yeniden ele alarak cerrahi verimlilik, basamaklı analiz ve eğitim açısından çıkarımlar üzerine odaklanmaktadır.
Yöntemler
Toplam 160 pediatrik Kİ olgusunun retrospektif analizi yapıldı. Toplam cerrahi süre ve tanımlanan sekiz cerrahi basamağın süreleri kaydedildi ve sonuçları optimize etmeye yönelik pratik çıkarımlar çalışmaya entegre edildi.
Bulgular
Cerrahi basamakların kümülatif süre ortalaması 37,2 ± 6,2 dakika olarak bulundu. En fazla zaman alan basamaklar sütür ve cilt kapatılması (13,4 ± 3 dakika) ile posterior timpanotomi (7,1 ± 2,7 dakika) idi. Bu basamaklar, verimlilik ve eğitsel değer açısından ayrıntılı olarak analiz edildi.
Sonuç
SPT, güvenlik ve etkinlik açısından konvansiyonel yöntemlerle karşılaştırılabilir olup, daha kısa operasyon süresi ve artmış eğitim potansiyeli gibi ek avantajlar sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Kİ cerrahisinde cerrahi iş akışını ve eğitimi geliştirmeye yönelik ayrıntılı rehberlik sağlamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler:
Subperiostal cep, koklear implantasyon, cerrahi eğitim, operatif verimlilik, pediatrik işitme kaybı
Kaynaklar
1
Ericsson KA: The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity. High Ability Studies. 1998; 9: 75–100.
2
Roland PS, Wright CG. Surgical aspects of cochlear implantation: mechanisms of insertional trauma. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 64: 11–30.
3
Markodimitraki LM, Strijbos RM, Stegeman I, Thomeer HGXM. Cochlear implant fixation techniques: a systematic review of the literature. Otol Neurotol. 2021; 42: 959–66.
4
de Varebeke SP, Govaerts P, Cox T, Deben K, Ketelslagers K, Waelkens B. Fixation of cochlear implants: an evidence-based review of literature. B-ENT. 2012; 8: 85–94.
5
Kant E, Markodimitraki LM, Stegeman I, Thomeer HGXM. Variability in surgical techniques for cochlear implantation: an international survey study. Cochlear Implants Int. 2022; 23: 195–202.
6
Markodimitraki LM, Harkel TCT, Bennink E, Stegeman I, Thomeer HGXM. A monocenter, patient-blinded, randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority study to compare cochlear implant receiver/stimulator device fixation techniques (COMFIT) with and without drilling in adults eligible for primary cochlear implantation. Trials. 2023; 24: 605.
7
Balkany TJ, Whitley M, Shapira Y, Angeli SI, Brown K, Eter E, et al. The temporalis pocket technique for cochlear implantation: an anatomic and clinical study. Otol Neurotol. 2009; 30: 903–7.
8
Güldiken Y, Orhan KS, Yiğit O, Başaran B, Polat B, Güneş S, et al. Subperiosteal temporal pocket versus standard technique in cochlear implantation: a comparative clinical study. Otol Neurotol. 2011; 32: 987–91.
9
Cohen MS, Ha AY, Kitsko DJ, Chi DH. Surgical outcomes with subperiosteal pocket technique for cochlear implantation in very young children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 78: 1545–7.
10
Sweeney AD, Carlson ML, Valenzuela CV, Wanna GB, Rivas A, Bennett ML, et al. 228 cases of cochlear implant receiver-stimulator placement in a tight subperiosteal pocket without fixation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015; 152: 712–7.
11
Nagpal K, Vats A, Lamb B, Ashrafian H, Sevdalis N, Vincent C, et al. Information transfer and communication in surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2010; 252: 225–39.
12
de Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RM, den Outer AJ, van Andel G, van Helden SH, et al. Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 1928–37.
13
Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 491–9.
14
Maxwell AK, Cass SP. Cochlear Implant receiver-stimulator migration using the subperiosteal pocket technique: objective measurements of early and late positioning. Otol Neurotol. 2019; 40: 328–34.
15
Orhan KS, Polat B, Enver N, Güldiken Y. Tailed Palva flap in the subperiosteal pocket technique for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol. 2015; 129: 916–8.
16
Güldiken Y, Polat B, Enver N, Aydemir L, Çomoğlu Ş, Orhan KS. Evaluation of receiver-stimulator migration in cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique: a prospective clinical study. J Laryngol Otol. 2017; 131: 487–91.
17
Orhan KS, Polat B, Enver N, Çelik M, Güldiken Y, Değer K. Spontaneous bone bed formation in cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 35: 1752–4.
18
Turanoglu AK, Yigit O, Acioglu E, Okbay AM. Radiologic evidence of cochlear implant bone bed formation following the subperiosteal temporal pocket technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; 154: 702–6.
19
Arnoldner C, Baumgartner WD, Gstoettner W, Hamzavi J. Surgical considerations in cochlear implantation in children and adults: a review of 342 cases in Vienna. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005; 125: 228–34.
20
Dodson KM, Maiberger PG, Sismanis A. Intracranial complications of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2007; 28: 459–62.
21
Gosepath J, Maurer J, Mann WJ. Epidural hematoma after cochlear implantation in a 2.5-year-old boy. Otol Neurotol. 2005; 26: 202–4.
22
Proops DW, Stoddart RL, Donaldson I. Medical, surgical and audiological complications of the first 100 adult cochlear implant patients in Birmingham. J Laryngol Otol Suppl. 1999; 24: 14–7.
23
Carlson ML, O’Connell BP, Lohse CM, Driscoll CL, Sweeney AD. Survey of the American Neurotology Society on Cochlear Implantation: part 2, surgical and device-related practice patterns. Otol Neurotol. 2018; 39: e20–7.
24
Ceylan ME, Zorlu ME, Çorakçı O, Akı ES, Yıldırım GA, Dalgıç A. Comparison of conventional technique with suture fixation and subperiosteal tight pocket technique on revision cochlear implantation rate. J Int Adv Otol. 2024; 20: 301–5.
25
Stern Shavit S, Weinstein EP, Drusin MA, Elkin EB, Lustig LR, Alexiades G. Comparison of cochlear implant device fixation-well drilling versus subperiosteal pocket. A cost effectiveness, case-control study. Otol Neurotol. 2021; 42: 517–23.
26
Clark RE, Pugh CM, Yates KA, Inaba K, Green DJ, Sullivan ME. The use of cognitive task analysis to improve instructional descriptions of procedures. J Surg Res. 2012; 173: e37–42.
27
Halsted WS. The training of the surgeon. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1904;15:267-275. Available from: https://archive.org/details/b2246413x.
28
Nazari T, Vlieger EJ, Dankbaar MEW, van Merriënboer JJG, Lange JF, et al. Creation of a universal language for surgical procedures using the step-by-step framework. BJS Open. 2018; 2: 151–7.
29
Reznick RK, MacRae H. Teaching surgical skills--changes in the wind. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 2664–9.
30
Hughes GB. The learning curve in stapes surgery. Laryngoscope. 1991; 101: 1280–4.
31
Yung MW, Oates J. The learning curve in stapes surgery and its implication for training. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2007; 65: 361–9.
32
Yung MW, Oates J, Vowler SL. The learning curve in stapes surgery and its implication to training. Laryngoscope. 2006; 116: 67–71.
33
Pollei TR, Barrs DM, Hinni ML, Bansberg SF, Walter LC. Operative time and cost of resident surgical experience: effect of instituting an otolaryngology residency program. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013; 148: 912–8.
34
Majdani O, Schuman TA, Haynes DS, Dietrich MS, Leinung M, Lenarz T, et al. Time of cochlear implant surgery in academic settings. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 142: 254–9.
35
Markodimitraki LM, Stegeman I, Thomeer HGXM. Cochlear implant awareness: development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure. Front Neurosci. 2022; 16: 830768.
