Сравнительный анализ результатов кохлеарной имплантации под общей и местной анестезией у пациентов с коморбидной патологией

Abstract

The article is devoted to an urgent problem – the correction of hearing impairment in patients with concomitant diseases. The results of a comparative analysis of data from patients with somatic diseases who underwent cochlear implantation (CI) for severe to profound hearing loss hearing loss of the fourth degree and deafness under local and general anesthesia are presented. Materials and methods. On the basis of the National Medical Research Center for Otorhinolaryngology of the Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia, CI was performed under local anesthesia for 10 patients with concomitant diseases, which represented difficulties for the use of general anesthesia (main group). All patients in the preoperative stage precisely informed about each stage of the surgery and with the cue-cards (with questions) to maintain contact with them during CI. The control group consisted of 10 patients who underwent CI under general anesthesia. CI was performed according to a standard technique. After the operation, a survey of patients of both groups about subjective sensations during the operation and in the early postoperative period was carried out. Results. CI under local anesthesia takes an average of 18±5.2 min, taking into account the time of anesthesia, which is 15±5.3 min less than with general anesthesia (p<0.001). When performing CI under local anesthesia, clear thresholds for recording acoustic reflexes stapedial muscle are determined, since in this case the effect of muscle relaxants is excluded. Against the background of local anesthesia, the necessary effect was achieved rather quickly, there was no increase in blood pressure to high numbers, patients answered all the signs and questions by reading the information from the cue-cards. A survey of patients revealed a good tolerance to local anesthesia. The number of patients in the main group which had a complaints in the early postoperative period was less than in the control group (p<0.05). The duration of hospital staying in patients of the main group averaged 1.15 days (from 1 to 3 days), which is significantly less than in the control group – from 3 to 7 days, on average 4.05 days (p<0.05). When conducting CI under local anesthesia, none of the patients showed a destabilization of comorbidity pathology in the postoperative period. Conclusion. CI under local anesthesia in patients with concomitant pathology has several advantages over general anesthesia. The use of local anesthesia will increase the availability of CI for elderly comorbid patients and mitigate the risks of general anesthesia.