Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:57:08.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intact meatal skin, canal wall down approach for difficult cochlear implantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2017

M J Carfrae  and
D Foyt
M J Carfrae
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Division, Surgery Department, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York, USA
D Foyt*
Affiliation:
Northeast Ear Institute, Albany, New York, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Dr David Foyt, Northeast Ear Institute, 6 Executive Park Dr, Albany, New York 12203, USA. Fax: +1 (518) 482 6142 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

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.

Keywords

Otologic Surgical ProceduresCochlear ImplantsExternal Auditory Canal
Type
Short Communications
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 8 , August 2009 , pp. 903 - 906
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Balkany, T, Gantz, BJ, Steenerson, RL, Cohen, NL. Systemic approach to electrode insertion in the ossified cochlea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;114:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Balkany, T, Bird, PA, Hodges, AV, Luntz, M, Telischi, FF, Buchman, C. Surgical technique for implantation of the totally ossified cochlea. Laryngoscope 1998;18:988–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Gantz, BJ, McCabe, BF, Tyler, RS. Use of multi-channel cochlear implants in obstructed and obliterated cochleas. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;98:72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Balkany, TJ, Gantz, BJ, Nadol, JB. Multi-channel cochlear implants in partially ossified cochleas. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1988;97:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Slattery, WH 3rd, Luxford, WM. Cochlear implantation in the congenital malformed cochlea. Laryngoscope 1995;105:1184–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Tucci, DL, Telian, SA, Zimmerman-Phillips, S, Zwolan, TA, Kileny, PR. Cochlear implantation in patients with cochlear malformations. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:833–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Ito, J, Sakota, T, Kato, H, Hazama, M, Enomoto, M. Surgical considerations regarding cochlear implantation in the congenitally malformed cochlea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121:495–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 McElveen, JT, Carrasco, N, Miyamoto, RT, Linthicum, FH Jr. Cochlear implantation in common cavity malformations using a transmastoid labyrinthotomy approach. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1032–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Downs, BW, Buchman, CA. External auditory canal translocation for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 2005;115:555–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Fisch, U. Special applications of mastoidectomy: Cochlear implant. In: Fisch, U. Tympanoplasty, Mastoidectomy, and Stapes Surgery. Stuttgart: Thieme Medical Publishers, 1994;201–9Google Scholar
11 Sennaroglu, L, Aydin, E. Anteroposterior approach with split ear canal for cochlear implantation in severe malformations. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:39–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Kiratzidis, T. Veria operation: cochlear implantation without a mastoidectomy and a posterior tympanotomy. A new surgical technique. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000;57:27–30Google Scholar
13 Kiratzidis, T, Arnold, W, Iliades, T. Veria operation updated. I. The trans-canal wall cochlear implantation. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002;64:406–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Kiratzidis, T, Iliades, T, Arnold, W. Veria operation. II. Surgical results from 101 cases. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002;64:413–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Kronenberg, J, Baumgartner, W, Migirov, L, Dagan, T, Hildesheimer, M. The suprameatal approach: an alternative surgical approach to cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:41–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Kronenberg, J, Migirov, L, Dagan, T. Suprameatal approach: new surgical approach for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:283–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17 Colletti, V, Giorino, F. New window for cochlear implant insertion. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1999;119:214–18Google ScholarPubMed
18 Colletti, V, Fiorino, FG, Carner, M, Sacchetto, L, Miorelli, V, Carner, M. New approach for cochlear implantation: cochleostomy through the middle fossa. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;12:467–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Bennett, RJ. The operation of tympanomastoid re-aeration – physiological repair of the radical mastoid cavity. J Laryngol Otol 1981;95:1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Smith, PG, Stroud, MH, Goegel, JA. Soft-wall reconstruction of the posterior external ear canal wall. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;94:355–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Takahashi, H, Honjo, I, Naito, Y, Miura, M, Tanabe, M, Hasebe, M, Toda, H. Assessment of gas exchange function through the mastoid mucosa in ears after surgery. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1117–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22 Takahashi, H, Honjo, I, Hasebe, S, Sudo, M, Tanabe, M. Soft-wall reconstruction of posterior canal wall for surgery of noninflamed ears. Am J Otol 1999;20:31–5Google ScholarPubMed
23 Takahashi, H, Hasebe, S, Sudo, M, Tanabe, M, Fnabiki, K. Soft-wall reconstruction for cholesteatoma surgery: reappraisal. Am J Otol 2000;21:28–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24 Hosoi, H, Murata, K. Tympanoplasty with reconstruction of soft posterior meatal wall in ears with cholesteatoma. Auris Nasus Larynx (Tokyo) 1994;21:69–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Hosoi, H, Murata, K, Kimura, H, Tsuta, Y. Long-term observation after soft posterior meatal wall reconstruction in ears with cholesteatoma. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:31–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed