To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study aimed to evaluate migration of the receiver–stimulator after cochlear implantation using the subperiosteal pocket technique.
A prospective clinical study was performed of 32 paediatric patients (aged between 12 months and 8 years; mean ± standard deviation, 28 ± 19 months) who underwent cochlear implantation in tertiary referral centres. The degree of migration was evaluated using measurements between the receiver–stimulator and selected reference points: the lateral canthus, tragus and mastoid tip. All distances were measured during and six months after surgery.
No receiver–stimulator migration was observed when using the subperiosteal pocket technique.
Concerns about implant migration in the subperiosteal pocket technique are unwarranted: this is a safe technique to use for cochlear implantation.
To investigate rhinology-related malpractice claims with the aim of optimising safe practice.
The database of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine was reviewed. In total, 241 otorhinolaryngology malpractice case reports dating from 2005 to 2012 were evaluated, and 83 malpractice cases related to rhinology treatments were separated.
There was no significant difference between the number of male (n = 42) and female (n = 41) claimants. The mean patient age was 32.07 ± 10.53 years (range, 10–75 years). Seventy-nine cases involved surgical treatment in rhinology. The most common complaints were: unsatisfactory cosmetic results (n = 30), optic nerve injury (n = 10), septal perforation (n = 9) and intracranial penetration (n = 4). Malpractice was detected in 21 cases (25.3 per cent). No delinquency was found in 62 cases (74.7 per cent).
Physicians should be aware of legal consequences related to rhinology practice. Further study is needed on this topic, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration, to ensure best practices and to avoid litigation.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.