@article{TopsakalAgrawalAtlasetal.2022,
  author    = {Topsakal, Vedat and Agrawal, Sumit and Atlas, Marcus and Baumgartner, Wolf-Dieter and Brown, Kevin and Bruce, Iain A. and Dazert, Stefan and Hagen, Rudolf and Lassaletta, Luis and Mlynski, Robert and Raine, Christopher H. and Rajan, Gunesh P. and Schmutzhard, Joachim and Sprinzl, Georg Mathias and Staecker, Hinrich and Usami, Shin-ichi and Van Rompaey, Vincent and Zernotti, Mario and Heyning, Paul van de},
  title     = {Minimally traumatic cochlear implant surgery: expert opinion in 2010 and 2020},
  series = {Journal of Personalized Medicine},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Journal of Personalized Medicine},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {2075-4426},
  doi       = {10.3390/jpm12101551},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288196},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This study aimed to discover expert opinion on the surgical techniques and materials most likely to achieve maximum postoperative residual hearing preservation in cochlear implant (CI) surgery and to determine how these opinions have changed since 2010. A previously published questionnaire used in a study published in 2010 was adapted and expanded. The questionnaire was distributed to an international group of experienced CI surgeons. Present results were compared, via descriptive statistics, to those from the 2010 survey. Eighteen surgeons completed the questionnaire. Respondents clearly favored the following: round window insertion, slow array insertion, and the peri- and postoperative use of systematic antibiotics. Insertion depth was regarded as important, and electrode arrays less likely to induce trauma were preferred. The usefulness of dedicated soft-surgery training was also recognized. A lack of agreement was found on whether the middle ear cavity should be flushed with a non-aminoglycoside antibiotic solution or whether a sheath or insertion tube should be used to avoid contaminating the array with blood or bone dust. In conclusion, this paper demonstrates how beliefs about CI soft surgery have changed since 2010 and shows areas of current consensus and disagreement.},
  language  = {en}
}