Literature DB >> 19507230

Comparison of two approaches to the surgical management of cochlear implantation.

Job T F Postelmans1, Wilko Grolman, Rinze A Tange, Robert J Stokroos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Our study was designed to compare two surgical approaches that are currently employed in cochlear implantation.
METHODS: There were 315 patients who were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique used for implantation. The suprameatal approach (SMA) was followed for 104 patients (107 implantations) in Amsterdam, whereas the mastoidectomy with posterior tympanotomy approach (MPTA) was adhered to for 211 (214 implantations) in Maastricht. The outcome variables of interest were duration of surgery and peri- or postoperative complications.
RESULTS: In the SMA group the incidence of major and minor complications was 3.7% (4/107) and 23.4% (25/107), respectively, whereas it was 6.5% (14/214) and 22.4% (48/214), respectively, in the MPTA group. A chi-square statistic of 1.096 (P = .295) and 0.021 (P = .884) for minor and major complications, respectively, indicated no statistically significant differences between the two techniques. Mean duration of surgery was significantly shorter (P < .0005) in the SMA (111.7 minutes) than in the MPTA (132.2 minutes) group.
CONCLUSIONS: The suprameatal approach is clearly a good alternative to the classical surgery technique for cochlear implantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19507230     DOI: 10.1002/lary.20487

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

1.  Percutaneous cochlear implant drilling via customized frames: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Ramya Balachandran; Jason E Mitchell; Grégoire Blachon; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Long-term results of the transattical approach: an alternative technique for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Miguel Vaca; Auxiliadora Gutiérrez; Rubén Polo; Antonio Alonso; Felipe Álvarez
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Comparison of two cochlear implantation techniques and their effects on the preservation of residual hearing. Is the surgical approach of any importance?

Authors:  J T F Postelmans; R J Stokroos; E van Spronsen; W Grolman; R A Tange; M J Maré; Wouter Albert Dreschler
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Cochlear implantation using a suprameatal approach in a case of severely contracted mastoid cavity.

Authors:  Ji Eun Choi; Jeon Yeob Jang; Yang-Sun Cho
Journal:  Korean J Audiol       Date:  2014-12-22

Review 5.  Non-mastoidectomy Cochlear Implant Approaches: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Mohammad Waheed El-Anwar; Ahmed Shaker ElAassar; Yaser Ahmad Foad
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.