Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Annals of Otology and Neurotology 2020; 3(01): 10-15
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715293
Original Article

Impact of the Surgical Approach: A Comparative Study between Transcanal and Posterior Tympanotomy Approach for Cochlear Implantation

Neeraj Suri
1   Department of ENT, GMERS Medical College, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
,
Satya Sandilya
1   Department of ENT, GMERS Medical College, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
,
Ruta Sayani
1   Department of ENT, GMERS Medical College, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
,
Amit Anand
2   Department of Audiology, Asian Speech and Hearing Clinic, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The aim of our study is to compare the surgical complications of the transcanal and posterior tympanotomy approach and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques.

Materials and Methods It is a prospective study involving 252 pediatric cochlear implant patients operated in the Department of ENT, GMERS Medical College and General Hospital, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. Out of these, 126 patients were operated by transcanal approach (group A) and 126 patients were operated by posterior tympanotomy approach (group B).

Results No significant difference in the mean duration of surgery (p > 0.064) was observed in both the groups. Major complications occurred in 60.2% of group A and 3.1% of group B and minor complications occurred in 65% of group A and 3.1% in group B, which is highly significant (p < 0.0134). The categories of auditory perception, speech intelligibility rating scales, meaningful auditory integration scale, and meaningful use of speech scale were assessed in both groups.

Conclusion Complication rate in the transcanal approach is higher as compared with posterior tympanotomy approach. A complete alignment and introduction of electrode array into the basal turn of cochlea is more favorable in the posterior tympanotomy approach. Transcanal technique even as an alternative may not be useful. Outcomes may be affected depending upon the technique chosen.

Keywords

transcanal - posterior tympanotomy - cochlear implant


Publication History

Article published online:
29 July 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Brito R, Monteiro TA, Leal AF, Tsuji RK, Pinna MH, Bento RF. Surgical complications in 550 consecutive cochlear implantation. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2012; 78 (03) 80-85
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Kirtane MV, Chavan KP. Cochlear implant surgical technique: our experience. Ann Otol Neurotol 2018; 1 (01) 7-10
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cohen NL, Hoffman RA. Complications of cochlear implant surgery in adults and children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100 (9 Pt 1) 708-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kiratzidis T, Arnold W, Iliades T. Veria operation updated. I. The transcanal wall cochlear implantation. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002; 64 (06) 406-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kronenberg J, Migirov L, Dagan T. Suprameatal approach: new surgical approach for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2001; 115 (04) 283-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Häusler R. Cochlear implantation without mastoidectomy: the pericanal electrode insertion technique. Acta Otolaryngol 2002; 122 (07) 715-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kronenberg J, Migirov L. The suprameatal approach: an alternative surgical technique for cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2006; 7 (03) 142-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Postelmans JT, Grolman W, Tange RA, Stokroos RJ. Comparison of two approaches to the surgical management of cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (08) 1571-1578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 El-Anwar MW, ElAassar AS, Foad YA. Non-mastoidectomy cochlear implant approaches: a literature review. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 20 (02) 180-184
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lavinsky-Wolff M, Lavinsky L, Dall’Igna C, Lavinsky J, Setogutti E, Viletti MC. Transcanal cochleostomy in cochlear implant surgery: long-term results of a cohort study. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2012; 78 (02) 118-123
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Sürmelioğlu Ö, Özdemir S, Tarkan Ö. et al. Alternative techniques in cochlear implantation. J Int Adv Otol 2016; 12 (01) 109-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tarabichi M, Nazhat O, Kassouma J, Najmi M. Endoscopic cochlear implantation: call for caution. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (03) 689-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Torres R, Drouillard M, De Seta D. et al. Cochlear implant insertion axis into the basal turn: a critical factor in electrode array translocation. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (02) 168-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mostefa EB, Ezzat FW, Mogui MA. Approach for cochlear implantation: technique and results. Advances in Otolaryngology 2014; (2014) 1-5
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jang JH, Park MH, Song JJ. et al. Long-term outcome of cochlear implant in patients with chronic otitis media: one-stage surgery is equivalent to two-stage surgery. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30 (01) 82-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hehar SS, Nikolopoulos TP, Gibbin KP, O’Donoghue GM. Surgery and functional outcomes in deaf children receiving cochlear implants before age 2 years. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128 (01) 11-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kim CS, Kim DK, Suh MW, Oh SH, Chang SO. Clinical outcomes of cochlear reimplantation due to device failure. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 1 (01) 10-1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar