scholarly journals Cochlear Implantation Using a Suprameatal Approach in a Case of Severely Contracted Mastoid Cavity

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 144
Author(s):  
Ji Eun Choi ◽  
Jeon Yeob Jang ◽  
Yang-Sun Cho
1997 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. R. Axon ◽  
D. J. Mawman ◽  
T. Upile ◽  
R. T. Ramsden

AbstractNine patients are presented who underwent cochlear implantation in the presence of chronic suppurative otitis media. Four had a simple tympanic membrane perforation, four had a pre-existing mastoid cavity and one had cholesteatoma in the ear chosen for implantation. Patients with a simple perforation had a staged procedure with myringoplasty followed by cochlear implantation after an interval of three months. Patients with cholesteatoma or with an unstable mastoid cavity were also staged. A mastoidectomy or revision mastoidectomy was performed with obliteration of the middle ear and mastoid using a superiorly pedicled temporalis muscle flap and blind sac closure of the external meatal skin. After a further six months a second stage procedure was performed to confirm that the middle-ear cleft was healthyand to insert the implant. Patients presenting with a stable mastoid cavity underwent obliteration of the cavity and implantation of the electrode as a one-staged procedure. To date there have been no serious problems such as graft breakdown, recurrence of disease or implant extrusion, and all patients are performing well.


2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (6) ◽  
pp. 493-496
Author(s):  
C Carnevale ◽  
G Til-Pérez ◽  
D Arancibia-Tagle ◽  
M Tomás-Barberán ◽  
P Sarría-Echegaray

AbstractObjectiveSafe cochlear implantation is challenging in patients with canal wall down mastoid cavities, and the presence of large meatoplasties increases the risk of external canal overclosure. This paper describes our results of obliteration of the mastoid cavity with conchal cartilage as an alternative procedure in cases of canal wall down mastoidectomy with very large meatoplasty.MethodsThe cases of seven patients with a canal wall down mastoidectomy cavity who underwent cochlear implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Post-operative complications were analysed. The mean follow-up duration was 4.5 years.ResultsThere was no hint of cholesteatoma recurrence and all patients have been free of symptoms during follow up. Only one patient showed cable extrusion six months after surgery, and implantation of the contralateral ear was needed.ConclusionPseudo-obliteration of the mastoid cavity with a cartilage multi-layered palisade reconstruction covering the electrode may be a safe alternative in selected patients with a large meatoplasty.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 102-106
Author(s):  
Naresh K Panda ◽  
Gyanaranjan Nayak ◽  
Roshan Verma

Objective: To describe the potential problems of cochlear implantation in mastoid cavity with possibilities of extrusion of electrode array by breakdown of epithelial lining or flap cover recurrent cholesteatoma and spread of infection to the implant. The issues with surgical management and subsequent follow up is discussed. Methods: In a Series of 170 Cochlear Implantations at our centre, four patients had Cochlear Implantation with Blind sac closure, complete removal of epithelium from the radical mastoid cavity, obliteration of the cavity with temporoparietal fascia flap and electrode insertion. Follow up ranging from 21 months up to 84 months is available. One patient during follow up had to undergo re implantation due to extrusion of the electrodes. Results: All the patients had good outcome regarding hearing improvement. One of the patients had to undergo exploration and re implantation of electrodes due to extrusion of electrodes through the external auditory canal. This patient had a canal cholesteatoma. Discussion: An important issue in single stage procedure is ensuring complete removal of fibro epithelial lining of the cavity. The advantage is cost reduction and minimizes the need for multiple general anesthesia. A follow up CT scan at regular intervals is required to detect recurrence. Conclusions: The patients undergoing cochlear implantation in a radical mastoid cavity require intensive follow up with computerized tomography to detect recidivism, Single stage cochlear implantation in radical mastoid cavity is an appropriate therapeutic decision by the cochlear implant surgeon.


2002 ◽  
Vol 127 (5) ◽  
pp. 432-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Pasanisi ◽  
Vincenzo Vincenti ◽  
Andrea Bacciu ◽  
Maurizio Guida ◽  
Teresa Berghenti ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE: We report on our experience in cochlear implantation in patients with radical mastoidectomy cavities. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND METHODS: Retrospectively, records of patients from the Department of Otolaryngology, University of Parma between December 1991 and March 2000 were reviewed, and 6 postlingually deafened adults who received a cochlear implant in a radical cavity were identified. Speech performances were evaluated in terms of bisyllabic word and sentence recognition and common phrase comprehension. RESULTS: To date, with a follow-up of 1 to 9 years, no patient has experienced extrusion of electrodes or other local or intracranial complications. Mean bisyllabic word and sentence recognition scores were 74% and 80%, respectively. Mean comprehension score for common phrases was 86%. CONCLUSION: By obliterating and isolating the radical mastoidectomy cavity from the outer environment, patients who previously had undergone radical surgery of the middle ear can be safely implanted with satisfactory hearing results. Multichannel cochlear implantation (CI) is a treatment accepted worldwide for patients with total or profound deafness. In the presence of normal temporal bone anatomy, CI surgery is a safe and relatively simple procedure with a low complication rate. 1–3 However, some conditions, such as malformations of the middle or inner ear, cochlear ossification, chronic otitis media, and previous middle ear surgery, represent a technical challenge to CI surgeons. Patients with a bilateral radical mastoidectomy cavity who are otherwise suitable for implantation represent a certainly more problematic group to manage than the “standard” CI patients. Under these circumstances, various potential problems must be considered: extrusion of the electrode array by breakdown of the thin epithelial lining of the mastoid cavity, risk of recurrent cholesteatoma, and possibility of spreading of inflammation to the implant with potential labyrinthitis and meningitis. During recent years various surgical strategies have been proposed in the literature to avoid such complications. Many surgeons suggested overcoming these problems by performing an obliterative technique, 4–6 whereas others preferred to maintain the benefits of an open technique 7 or to rehabilitate the cavity 8 ; it has also been suggested that the cavity be bypassed via a middle cranial fossa approach. 9 We describe the experience at the CI Center of the University of Parma in managing 6 CI patients with radical mastoidectomy cavities.


1989 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Marks ◽  
Robert K. Jackler ◽  
Grant J. Bates ◽  
Sheldon Greenberg

Accommodation for head growth presents one of several challenges unique to pediatric cochlear implantation. Given contemporary cochlear implant device designs, an electrode cable implanted at the age of 2 years must extend 2 to 3 cm as the head grows during childhood. In an initial study we found that model lead wires with redundant loops extended effectively when they were maintained within air-containing spaces such as the mastoid cavity or middle ear space. However, when looped leads traversed soft tissues overlying the parietal bone, they became embedded in fibrous tissue and did not extend. The present study evaluated three different configurations of expansile devices that were enclosed In polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) envelopes to deter fibrous ingrowth. This simple strategy was designed to ensure effective cable extension over cable pathlengths by protecting the redundant leads from any mechanically significant connective tissue ingrowth. Twelve such devices were implanted across the calvaria of four newly weaned plglets. Skull growth and changes in electrode dimensions were documented by sequential computed tomographic scans. At 3 months of age, cranial circumferences had increased substantially. Animals were then killed, the model cable extension appliances examined physically, and their implantation sites examined histologically. For all experimental devices, extension of redundant lead wires was satisfactory, and there was no mechanically significant invasion of fibrous connective tissue into the PTFE envelope. This indicates that enclosure of excess lead wire within a PTFE envelope may be an effective means of inhibiting fibrous Ingrowth. This strategy should prove useful for ensuring effective electrode cable extension In cochlear implants applied in young children.


2019 ◽  
Vol 160 (24) ◽  
pp. 936-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ádám Perényi ◽  
József Jóri ◽  
Miklós Csanády ◽  
László Rovó

Abstract: Introduction: Early cochlear implantation enables prelingual deaf individuals to become full members of the hearing society. Although early diagnostics are widely accessible and enable early rehabilitation, implant surgery often may be delayed due to a candidate’s young age. Aim: The authors’ objectives were to determine the anatomical parameters of the pediatric and adult temporal bone that are relevant to cochlear implantation and to ascertain the differences between them in order to assess whether the anatomical differences could influence the surgical technique and the timing of surgery. Method: Along with a survey of the literature, findings from the authors own cochlear implantees were assessed with respect to the most relevant dimensions of the internal electronic package, including the stimulating electrode of the cochlear implant, by measuring the squama of the temporal bone, the mastoid cavity and the facial recess on high resolution computed tomographic images. Results: The skull and the overlying soft tissues proved to be thinner and the mastoid cavity was less developed in children than in adults, while no significant changes were noted in the size of the facial recess. Conclusions: It is recommended to choose modern, thin implants that do not require sinking the implant package into a bone bed. Less bone work in infants and children enables excellent visualization of the round window through the underdeveloped mastoid cavity, which makes the procedure less time-consuming and minimally invasive. Indeed, a young age should alert ear surgeons to be cautious, but no higher risk of injury to important structures is predicted for young subjects than those that might occur in adults. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(24): 936–943.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Todt ◽  
D. Karimi ◽  
J. Luger ◽  
A. Ernst ◽  
P. Mittmann

Introduction.To achieve a functional atraumatic cochlear implantation, intracochlear pressure changes during the procedure should be minimized. Postinsertional cable movements are assumed to induce intracochlear pressure changes. The aim of this study was to observe intracochlear pressure changes due to postinsertional cable movements.Materials and Methods.Intracochlear pressure changes were recorded in a cochlear model with a micro-pressure sensor positioned in the apical region of the cochlea model to follow the maximum amplitude and pressure gain velocity in intracochlear pressure. A temporal bone mastoid cavity was attached to the model to simulate cable positioning. The compared conditions were (1) touching the unsealed electrode, (2) touching the sealed electrode, (3) cable storage with an unfixed cable, and (4) cable storage with a fixed cable.Results.We found statistically significant differences in the occurrence of maximum amplitude and pressure gain velocity in intracochlear pressure changes under the compared conditions. Comparing the cable storage conditions, a cable fixed mode offers significantly lower maximum pressure amplitude and pressure gain velocity than the nonfixed mode.Conclusion.Postinsertional cable movement led to a significant pressure transfer into the cochlea. Before positioning the electrode cable in the mastoid cavity, fixation of the cable is recommended.


2009 ◽  
Vol 123 (8) ◽  
pp. 903-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
M J Carfrae ◽  
D Foyt

AbstractIntroduction:The intact posterior meatal skin, canal wall down technique for difficult cochlear implantation provides expanded access to the middle ear for cochleostomy in cases of obscured middle-ear landmarks, limited facial recess access and limited mastoid cavity dimensions. Careful preservation of the posterior canal wall skin in this procedure obviates the need for obliteration of the middle-ear mucosa and closure of the external auditory canal.Objectives:To present a canal wall down technique for cochlear implantation, which preserves the intact posterior external auditory canal wall skin. This approach is employed when a standard facial recess cochleostomy is not possible.Methods:Three cases of intact posterior meatal skin, canal wall down cochlear implantation are presented together with long-term follow-up results. In all three cases, implantation via a facial recess approach was not possible. One patient suffered from severe cochlear otosclerosis with obliteration of the round window niche. The second patient had severe middle-ear fibrosis with encasement of all middle-ear structures and obliteration of routine landmarks. The third patient had an anterior sigmoid sinus obscuring access to the facial recess. Cochlear implantation via the canal wall down, intact posterior canal wall skin technique was successfully performed in each of these patients.Results:All three patients were successfully implanted, with full electrode insertion achieved. All patients subsequently became active implant users. One patient did suffer from a minor wound complication post-operatively, unrelated to the approach. Patient follow up ranged from four to six years.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Wong Kein Low ◽  
Wan Ni Pok ◽  
Win Nie Ng ◽  
Judy Tan

Introduction. Although rare, cholesteatoma can develop as a late complication of cochlear implantation. The electrode array may then be exposed in the external auditory canal surrounded by cholesteatoma debris. Case Report. The cochlear implant of a child was inadvertently explanted by a clinician during a routine aural toilet procedure. The child had previously reported recurrent ear infections, pain, and unexplained implant function degradation. Reimplantation was carried out 2 days later with good postoperative hearing results. Part of the electrode array was observed to be embedded in cholesteatoma. Postreimplantation recovery was complicated by a breakdown of the blind-sac. Discussion. Clinical indicators that could alert the clinician to the possibility of this late complication include recurrent infections, presence of keratotic debris in the external auditory canal, unexplained implant function degradation, and nonauditory stimulation. Although this patient managed to achieve excellent postreimplantation hearing outcomes, a delay in reimplantation surgery following explantation could possibly compromise successful reinsertion of the electrode array. External ear canal overclosure without mastoid cavity obliteration has merit in facilitating CT scan surveillance, but it may increase the risk of the blind-sac breaking down. This case also illustrated how the electrode array could have facilitated propagation of the cholesteatoma from the middle ear to the mastoid. Conclusion. If aural toilet is required in the implanted ear of a cochlear implant recipient, any complaint of hearing change, pain, or discharge should alert the clinician of the possibility of cholesteatoma developing. It warrants prompt evaluation by an experienced otologist in order to prevent accidental explantation. Keywords. Cochlear implant, cochlear implant complications, chronic suppurative otitis media, cholesteatoma, reimplantation, blind-sac, external auditory canal overclosure, mastoid cavity obliteration.


2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
Jeon Ha Choi ◽  
Hun Hee Baek ◽  
Hyun Sang Cho ◽  
Choon Dong Kim

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document