Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 20(02): 180-184
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1558871
Systematic Review
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Non-mastoidectomy Cochlear Implant Approaches: A Literature Review

Mohammad Waheed El-Anwar
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
,
Ahmed Shaker ElAassar
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
,
Yaser Ahmad Foad
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 April 2015

17 May 2015

Publication Date:
23 July 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Posterior tympanotomy approach for cochlear implant (CI) surgery, has been the most commonly used worldwide with current 0.7% rate of facial nerve injury. Non-mastoidectomy CI approaches include the suprameatal approach (SMA) and its modifications, the transcanal approach and its modifications and the pericanal approach for electrode insertion.

Objectives The objective of this study was to review the literature regarding non-mastoidectomy CI approaches.

Data Synthesis A search was performed in the LILACS, MEDLINE, SciELO, PubMed databases and Cochrane Library in February 2015, and the key words used in the search were CI, SMA, transcanal approach, pericanal approach, or electrode extrusion. About 30 studies that met the criteria described in “Study Selection” were read in full. The studies showed 1014 patients that underwent CI by SMA or its modifications, 266 CI patients treated by transcanal approach or its modifications, and 15 patients implanted by the pericanal approach. Reported complication with SMA was 99 (9.8%) minor and 13 (1.3%) major. With transcanal, there were 24 complications; 19 (7.1%) minor and 5 (1.9%) major. No post-operative complication was reported in pericanal approach. Studies showed no reported facial nerve paresis or paralysis in all non-mastoidectomy approaches.

Conclusion Complications rates with non-mastoidectomy approaches are similar to those found in the mastoidectomy approach. Thus, non-mastoidectomy approaches may be an alternative in cases where the conventional mastoidectomy approach is difficult to perform. It would be helpful for CI surgeons to become familiarized with these approaches.

Keywords

cochlear implant - mastoidectomy - facial nerve
 

  • References

  • 1 Choi JE, Jang JY, Cho YS. Cochlear implantation using a suprameatal approach in a case of severely contracted mastoid cavity. Korean J Audiol 2014; 18 (3) 144-147
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zeitler DM, Balkany TJ. Alternative approaches to cochlear implantation. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology 2010; 21 (4) 248-253
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kronenberg J, Migirov L, Dagan T. Suprameatal approach: new surgical approach for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2001; 115 (4) 283-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kronenberg J, Baumgartner W, Migirov L, Dagan T, Hildesheimer M. The suprameatal approach: an alternative surgical approach to cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2004; 25 (1) 41-44 , discussion 44–45
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Postelmans JT, Grolman W, Tange RA, Stokroos RJ. Comparison of two approaches to the surgical management of cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (8) 1571-1578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kiratzidis T, Arnold W, Iliades T. Veria operation updated. I. The trans-canal wall cochlear implantation. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002; 64 (6) 406-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Häusler R. Cochlear implantation without mastoidectomy: the pericanal electrode insertion technique. Acta Otolaryngol 2002; 122 (7) 715-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lima Júnior LR, Rodrigues Júnior FdeA, Calhau CM, Calhau AC, Palhano CT. Postoperative complications in implanted patients in the Cochlear Implant Program of Rio Grande do Norte-Brazil. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 76 (4) 517-521
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kronenberg J, Migirov L. Application of minimal access surgery for cochlear implantation using suprameatal approach. Int Congr Ser 2004; 1273: 111-114
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kronenberg J, Migirov L. The suprameatal approach: an alternative surgical technique for cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2006; 7 (3) 142-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baumgartnera WD, Jappela A, Kronenberg J, Hamzavia J, Freia KM, Stach M. Cochlear implantation without mastoidectomy: the Vienna experience. Int Congr Ser 2004; 1273: 122-124
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yin S, Chen Z, Wu Y , et al. Suprameatal approach for cochlear implantation in 45 Chinese children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 72 (3) 397-403
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tange RA . Modifications on the Alternative Method for Cochlea Implantation, Cochlear Implant Research Updates, Dr. Cila Umat (Ed.) 2012, 2–27
  • 14 Guevara N, Bailleux S, Santini J, Castillo L, Gahide I. Cochlear implantation surgery without posterior tympanotomy: can we still improve it?. Acta Otolaryngol 2010; 130 (1) 37-41
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zernotti ME, Suárez A, Slavutsky V, Nicenboim L, Di Gregorio MF, Soto JA. Comparison of complications by technique used in cochlear implants. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2012; 63 (5) 327-331
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Slavutsky V, Nicenboim L. Preliminary results in cochlear implant surgery without antromastoidectomy and with atraumatic electrode insertion: the endomeatal approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 266 (4) 481-488
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Taibah K. The transmeatal approach: a new technique in cochlear and middle ear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2009; 10 (4) 218-228
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mostafa BE, Ezzat WF, El Mogui A. The Modified Transcanal Approach for Cochlear Implantation: Technique and Results. Advances in Otolaryngology 2014; http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/509703
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Hashemi B, Bayat AL, Kazemei T. Surgical Complications of Cochlear Implantation. Iran J Med Sci 2010; 35 (1) 53-55
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Xu BC, Wang SY, Liu XW , et al. Comparison of complications of the suprameatal approach and mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy approach in cochlear implantation: a meta-analysis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2014; 76 (1) 25-35
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Migirov L, Dagan E, Kronenberg J. Surgical and medical complications in different cochlear implant devices. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129 (7) 741-744
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brown KD, Connell SS, Balkany TJ, Eshraghi AE, Telischi FF, Angeli SA. Incidence and indications for revision cochlear implant surgery in adults and children. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (1) 152-157
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fayad JN, Baino T, Parisier SC. Revision cochlear implant surgery: causes and outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 131 (4) 429-432
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ajalloueyan M, Amirsalari S, Yousefi A, Raeesi MA, Radfar S, Hassanalifard M. Report of Surgical Complications in a Series of 262 Consecutive Pediatric Cochlear Implantations in Iran. Iran J Pediatr 2011; 21 (4) 455-460
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Cohen NL, Hoffman RA, Stroschein M. Medical or surgical complications related to the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1988; 135: 8-13
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Hoffman RA, Cohen NL. Complications of cochlear implant surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 420-422
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Fayad JN, Wanna GB, Micheletto JN, Parisier SC. Facial nerve paralysis following cochlear implant surgery. Laryngoscope 2003; 113 (8) 1344-1346
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 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 (1) 11-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kandogan T, Levent O, Gurol G. Complications of paediatric cochlear implantation: experience in Izmir. J Laryngol Otol 2005; 119 (8) 606-610
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Raghunandhan S, Kameswaran M, Anand Kumar RS, Agarwal AK, Hossain MD. A study of complications and morbidity profile in cochlear implantation: the MERF experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 66 (1) (Suppl. 01) 161-168
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar