ReviewOTO open
Revision Flap Coverage Following Primary Cochlear Implant Flap Failure: A Systematic Review.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: When medical management fails to solve skin flap complications following cochlear implantation (CI), same-sided reimplantation may be attempted using revision flaps that provide viable, vascularized tissue. This systematic review assesses long-term outcomes and complications of the most prevalent skin flaps in revision CI. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Review Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol, each database was queried from inception to December 15, 2024 for articles describing revision CI after skin flap failure. A qualitative synthesis of postoperative complications and long-term outcomes was employed for selected studies. Results: Of an initial 1878 abstracts screened, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria, amounting to 69 flap revisions following CI. Thirty-four revisions were performed after wound breakdown or skin necrosis at the implant site. Among the 7 studies that reported initial incision shape for their cohort, 5 used C-shaped, 1 used inverted U, and 1 used lazy S. Of the 11 articles that described their revision flap technique, 8 used a rotational flap. Three of these studies also used temporoparietal fascia flaps (TPFF). There were 9 revision flap failures (13.4%). Successful techniques included the rotational flap with either TPFF or free flap supplementation when required for coverage. Conclusion: The current data shows that skin flap revision for CI reimplantation is a feasible option following original flap failure; however, surgeons should take care to plan appropriately for each patient's unique anatomy and available viable tissue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.