Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 9/2016

01-09-2016 | Otology

Impact of the surgical experience on cochleostomy location: a comparative temporal bone study between endaural and posterior tympanotomy approaches for cochlear implantation

Authors: Clair Vandersteen, Thomas Demarcy, Coralie Roger, Eric Fontas, Charles Raffaelli, Nicholas Ayache, Hervé Delingette, Nicolas Guevara

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 9/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate, in the hands of an inexperienced surgeon, the cochleostomy location of an endaural approach (MINV) compared to the conventional posterior tympanotomy (MPT) approach. Since 2010, we use in the ENT department of Nice a new surgical endaural approach to perform cochlear implantation. In the hands of an inexperienced surgeon, the position of the cochleostomy has not yet been studied in detail for this technique. This is a prospective study of 24 human heads. Straight electrode arrays were implanted by an inexperienced surgeon: on one side using MPT and on the other side using MINV. The cochleostomies were all antero-inferior, but they were performed through an endaural approach with the MINV or a posterior tympanotomy approach with the MPT. The positioning of the cochleostomies into the scala tympani was evaluated by microdissection. Cochleostomies performed through the endaural approach were well placed into the scala tympani more frequently than those performed through the posterior tympanotomy approach (87.5 and 16.7 %, respectively, p ≤ 0.001). This study highlights the biggest challenge for an inexperienced surgeon to achieve a reliable cochleostomy through a posterior tympanotomy, which requires years of experience. In case of an uncomfortable view through a posterior tympanotomy, an inexperienced surgeon might be able to successfully perform a cochleostomy through an endaural (combined approach) or an extended round window approach in order to avoid opening the scala vestibuli.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Eshraghi AA (2006) Prevention of cochlear implant electrode damage. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 14:323–328CrossRefPubMed Eshraghi AA (2006) Prevention of cochlear implant electrode damage. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 14:323–328CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Eshraghi AA, Frachet B, Van De Water TR, Eter E (2009) Hearing loss in adults. Rev Prat 59:645–652PubMed Eshraghi AA, Frachet B, Van De Water TR, Eter E (2009) Hearing loss in adults. Rev Prat 59:645–652PubMed
3.
go back to reference Lazard DS, Lee HJ, Gaebler M et al (2010) Phonological processing in post-lingual deafness and cochlear implant outcome. Neuroimage 49:3443–3451CrossRefPubMed Lazard DS, Lee HJ, Gaebler M et al (2010) Phonological processing in post-lingual deafness and cochlear implant outcome. Neuroimage 49:3443–3451CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Wanna AGB, Noble JH, Carlson ML et al (2014) Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 124(Suppl 6):S1–S7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wanna AGB, Noble JH, Carlson ML et al (2014) Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes. Laryngoscope 124(Suppl 6):S1–S7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM (1995) Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:194–196PubMed Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM (1995) Prognostic indicators of speech recognition performance in adult cochlear implant users: a prospective analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:194–196PubMed
6.
go back to reference Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ (1999) Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 20:445–452PubMed Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ (1999) Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 20:445–452PubMed
7.
go back to reference Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK (2003) Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otol Neurotol 24:582–589CrossRefPubMed Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK (2003) Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otol Neurotol 24:582–589CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F et al (1996) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1:293–306CrossRefPubMed Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F et al (1996) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1:293–306CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hodges AV, Dolan Ash M, Balkany TJ et al (1999) Speech perception results in children with cochlear implants: contributing factors. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:31–34CrossRefPubMed Hodges AV, Dolan Ash M, Balkany TJ et al (1999) Speech perception results in children with cochlear implants: contributing factors. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:31–34CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF et al (1993) Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102:909–916CrossRefPubMed Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF et al (1993) Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102:909–916CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference House WF (1976) Cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 85(suppl 2):1–93PubMed House WF (1976) Cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 85(suppl 2):1–93PubMed
15.
go back to reference Häusler R (2002) Cochlear implantation without mastoidectomy: the pericanal electrode insertion technique. Acta Otolaryngol 122:715–719CrossRefPubMed Häusler R (2002) Cochlear implantation without mastoidectomy: the pericanal electrode insertion technique. Acta Otolaryngol 122:715–719CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Slavutsky V, Nicenboim L (2009) Preliminary results in cochlear implant surgery without antromastoidectomy and with atraumatic electrode insertion: the endomeatal approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266:481–488. doi:10.1007/s00405-008-0768-8 CrossRefPubMed Slavutsky V, Nicenboim L (2009) Preliminary results in cochlear implant surgery without antromastoidectomy and with atraumatic electrode insertion: the endomeatal approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266:481–488. doi:10.​1007/​s00405-008-0768-8 CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kronenberg J, Migirov L, Dagan T (2001) Suprameatal approach: new surgical approach for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 115:283–285CrossRefPubMed Kronenberg J, Migirov L, Dagan T (2001) Suprameatal approach: new surgical approach for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 115:283–285CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Kiratzidis T (2000) “Veria operation”: cochlear implantation without a mastoidectomy and a posterior tympanotomy. A new surgical technique. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 57:127–130PubMed Kiratzidis T (2000) “Veria operation”: cochlear implantation without a mastoidectomy and a posterior tympanotomy. A new surgical technique. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 57:127–130PubMed
20.
21.
22.
go back to reference Aschendorff A, Kubalek R, Turowski B et al (2007) Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Otol Neurotol 26:34–37CrossRef Aschendorff A, Kubalek R, Turowski B et al (2007) Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Otol Neurotol 26:34–37CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Skinner MW, Holden TA, Whiting BR et al (2007) In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 197:2–24CrossRefPubMed Skinner MW, Holden TA, Whiting BR et al (2007) In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 197:2–24CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference James C, Albegger K, Battmer R et al (2005) Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why. Acta Otolaryngol 125:481–491CrossRefPubMed James C, Albegger K, Battmer R et al (2005) Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why. Acta Otolaryngol 125:481–491CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Postelmans JTF, Stokroos RJ, van Spronsen E et al (2014) Comparison of two cochlear implantation techniques and their effects on the preservation of residual hearing. Is the surgical approach of any importance? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271:997–1005. doi:10.1007/s00405-013-2438-8 CrossRefPubMed Postelmans JTF, Stokroos RJ, van Spronsen E et al (2014) Comparison of two cochlear implantation techniques and their effects on the preservation of residual hearing. Is the surgical approach of any importance? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271:997–1005. doi:10.​1007/​s00405-013-2438-8 CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Jeon E-J, Jun B, Song J-N et al (2013) Surgical and radiologic anatomy of a cochleostomy produced via posterior tympanotomy for cochlear implantation based on three-dimensional reconstructed temporal bone CT images. Surg Radiol Anat. doi:10.1007/s00276-012-1061-5 Jeon E-J, Jun B, Song J-N et al (2013) Surgical and radiologic anatomy of a cochleostomy produced via posterior tympanotomy for cochlear implantation based on three-dimensional reconstructed temporal bone CT images. Surg Radiol Anat. doi:10.​1007/​s00276-012-1061-5
41.
go back to reference Perlman HB (1952) Experimental occlusion of the inferior cochlear vein. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 61:33–44CrossRefPubMed Perlman HB (1952) Experimental occlusion of the inferior cochlear vein. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 61:33–44CrossRefPubMed
45.
48.
go back to reference Brito R, Monteiro TA, Leal AF et al (2012) Surgical complications in 550 consecutive cochlear implantation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78:80–85CrossRefPubMed Brito R, Monteiro TA, Leal AF et al (2012) Surgical complications in 550 consecutive cochlear implantation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78:80–85CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Impact of the surgical experience on cochleostomy location: a comparative temporal bone study between endaural and posterior tympanotomy approaches for cochlear implantation
Authors
Clair Vandersteen
Thomas Demarcy
Coralie Roger
Eric Fontas
Charles Raffaelli
Nicholas Ayache
Hervé Delingette
Nicolas Guevara
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3792-5

Other articles of this Issue 9/2016

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 9/2016 Go to the issue