Cochlear implantation without general anaesthesia: a resource-efficient surgical pathway
- 1University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology Department of Biomo, UK
- 2Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, UK
- 3Department of Otolaryngology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the environmental and financial impact of cochlear implantation performed with and without general anaesthesia.
Methods: Two cochlear implant procedures performed on the same day by the same surgical and anaesthetic teams were prospectively evaluated: one under total intravenous anaesthesia with bispectral index monitoring, and one under local anaesthesia with propofol sedation. Anaesthetic drugs, consumables, equipment, electricity use and procedural duration were recorded. Financial costs were estimated using procurement data and national formularies. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions were calculated using published conversion factors.
Results: Local anaesthesia was associated with lower cost (£59 vs. £179) and lower carbon footprint (2.85 vs. 5.28 kg carbon dioxide equivalent). Procedural duration was similar between pathways (71 vs. 74 minutes).
Conclusion: Cochlear implantation without general anaesthesia may reduce environmental and financial cost without prolonging procedural duration. Anaesthetic pathway selection represents a modifiable determinant of resource use in otological practice.
Related
- Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in a Child with Warsaw Breakage Syndrome and Normal Cochlear Morphology: A Case Report and Focused Literature Review
- Tinnitus outcomes after cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness: an exploratory prospective multicenter study
- Residual Hearing Loss After Chronic Cochlear Implantation in Guinea Pigs is Primarily Conductive
- Long-Term Impedance Trends Over 10 Years Following Cochlear Implantation: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis
- Successful caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia in a pregnant woman with guillain-barré syndrome: a case report from a resource-limited setting.
BibTeX
@article{mould2026cochlear,
title = {{Cochlear implantation without general anaesthesia: a resource-efficient surgical pathway}},
author = {Holly Mould and Emma Stapleton},
journal = {The Journal of Laryngology and Otology},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1017/s002221512610543x},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s002221512610543x},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Cochlear implantation without general anaesthesia: a resource-efficient surgical pathway
AU - Holly Mould
AU - Emma Stapleton
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/06
JO - The Journal of Laryngology and Otology
DO - 10.1017/s002221512610543x
UR - https://doi.org/10.1017/s002221512610543x
AB - Objectives: This study aimed to compare the environmental and financial impact of cochlear implantation performed with and without general anaesthesia. Methods: Two cochlear implant procedures performed on the same day by the same surgical and anaesthetic teams were prospectively evaluated: one under total intravenous anaesthesia with bispectral index monitoring, and one under local anaesthesia with propofol sedation. Anaesthetic drugs, consumables, equipment, electricity use and procedural duration were recorded. Financial costs were estimated using procurement data and national formularies. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions were calculated using published conversion factors. Results: Local anaesthesia was associated with lower cost (£59 vs. £179) and lower carbon footprint (2.85 vs. 5.28 kg carbon dioxide equivalent). Procedural duration was similar between pathways (71 vs. 74 minutes). Conclusion: Cochlear implantation without general anaesthesia may reduce environmental and financial cost without prolonging procedural duration. Anaesthetic pathway selection represents a modifiable determinant of resource use in otological practice.
SN - 0022-2151
SN - 1748-5460
ER -