IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i12p4187-d370472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cochlear Implant Surgery: Endomeatal Approach versus Posterior Tympanotomy

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Freni

    (Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy)

  • Francesco Gazia

    (Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy)

  • Victor Slavutsky

    (Ent Clinic, 08001 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Enrique Perello Scherdel

    (Servicio de ORL, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, 08001 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Luis Nicenboim

    (Ear Institute, Universidad Abierta Interamericana, Rosario S2000, Argentina)

  • Rodrigo Posada

    (Servicio de ORL, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira 660001, Colombia)

  • Daniele Portelli

    (Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy)

  • Bruno Galletti

    (Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy)

  • Francesco Galletti

    (Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy)

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the posterior tympanotomy (PT) technique to the endomeatal approach. The endomeatal approach (EMA) for Cochlear Implant (CI) surgery was performed on 98 patients with procident lateral sinus or a small mastoid cavity, on 103 ears (Group A). Conventional mastoidectomy and PT was performed on the other 104 patients, on 107 ears (Group B). Data on all patients were then collected for the following: intra- and post-operative complications, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Vertigo Symptom Scale (VSS), duration of surgery, and postoperative discomfort. The difference in the total number of major and minor complications between the case group and the control group was not statistically significant. There was a statistically significant difference in discomfort between the two groups using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), both immediately postsurgery ( p = 0.02) and after one month ( p = 0.04). The mean duration of surgery was 102 ± 29 min for EMA and 118 ± 15 min for the PT technique ( p = 0.008). EMA is a faster technique resulting in reduced postoperative patient discomfort in comparison to the PT method. The experience of the surgeon as well as the correct choice of surgical technique are fundamental to successful outcomes for cochlear implant surgery.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Freni & Francesco Gazia & Victor Slavutsky & Enrique Perello Scherdel & Luis Nicenboim & Rodrigo Posada & Daniele Portelli & Bruno Galletti & Francesco Galletti, 2020. "Cochlear Implant Surgery: Endomeatal Approach versus Posterior Tympanotomy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-9, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4187-:d:370472
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4187/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4187/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simone Alex Bagaglia & Franco Passani & Giovanni William Oliverio & Leandro Inferrera & Feliciana Menna & Alessandro Meduri & Cosimo Mazzotta, 2021. "Multimodal Imaging in Susac Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-6, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4187-:d:370472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.