Perkins, Elizabeth L

Abstract 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.

ObjectiveTo characterize the catchment area and patient profile of large cochlear implant (CI) centers in the United States.Study DesignMulti‐institutional retrospective case series.SettingTertiary referral CI centers.MethodsPatients who underwent CI surgery at 7 participating CI centers between 2015 and 2020 were identified. Patients’ residential zip codes were used to approximate travel distances and urban vs rural residential areas.ResultsOver the 6‐year study period (2015‐2020), 6313 unique CI surgical procedures occurred (4529 adult, 1784 pediatric). Between 2015 and 2019, CI procedures increased by 43%. Patients traveled a median 52 miles (interquartile range, 21‐110) each way; patients treated at rural CI centers traveled greater distances vs those treated at urban centers (72 vs 46 miles, P <. 001). Rural residents represented 61% of the patient population and traveled farther than urban residents (73 vs 24 miles, P <. 001). Overall, 91% of patients lived within a 200‐mile radius of the institution, while 71% lived within a 100‐mile radius. In adults, multiple regression analysis redemonstrated an association between greater travel distances and (1) older age at the time of CI and (2) residential rural setting (both P <. 001, r2 = 0.2).ConclusionsWhile large CI centers serve geographically dispersed populations, most patients reside within a 200‐mile radius. Strategies to expand CI utilization may leverage remote programming, telemedicine, and strategic placement of new centers and satellite clinics to ameliorate travel burden.