Literature DB >> 20938963

Anatomic limitations in implantation of middle ear transducer and carina middle ear implants.

Georgios Kontorinis1, Thomas Lenarz, Burkard Schwab.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to examine any anatomic limitations in implantation of the semi-implantable middle ear transducer (MET) and fully implantable Carina middle ear implants (Otologics, Boulder, CO). STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
METHODS: This study involved high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the temporal bone and surgical findings in 22 middle ear implantations (17 MET, five Carina). The distance between the dura and the superior-posterior wall of the external auditory canal (dura-meatal distance) on the incus projection level was measured in coronal high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) sections. Extensive bone removal from the tegmen for the fitting of the implant was intraoperatively documented, using as criteria the dura exposure. The correlation between HRCT measurements and dura exposure was examined.
RESULTS: In 10 implantations (45.5%) the dura was exposed. In nine of 10 cases (90%) the dura-meatal distance was less than 8 mm. In 11 out of 12 implantations that were performed without exposing the dura (91.7%), the dura-meatal distance was greater than 8 mm. In two cases with dura-meatal distance less than 5 mm, extensive dura exposure and surgical time were needed. In one of these cases, opening of the dura occurred during later explantation.
CONCLUSIONS: When dura-meatal distance is greater than 8 mm, implantation of the MET or Carina is a safe procedure. By contrast, in cases with a dura-meatal distance of less than 8 mm, the surgery introduces a high risk of complications. When dura-meatal distance is less than 5 mm, MET or Carina implantation is not recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20938963     DOI: 10.1002/lary.21140

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


  7 in total

1.  Controlling the position and the dislocation of the middle ear transducer with high-resolution computed tomography and digital volume tomography: implications for the transducers' design.

Authors:  Georgios Kontorinis; Anja M Giesemann; Thomas Witt; Friedrich Goetz; Burkard Schwab
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Radiological requirements for surgical planning in cochlear implant candidates.

Authors:  Mohamad Hasan Alam-Eldeen; Usama Mohamed Rashad; Al Hussein Awad Ali
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

Review 3.  [Differential indication of active middle ear implants].

Authors:  K Braun; H-P Zenner; N Friese; A Tropitzsch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  The Carina© middle ear implant: surgical and functional outcomes.

Authors:  Luca Bruschini; Stefano Berrettini; Francesca Forli; Alessandra Murri; Domenico Cuda
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 5.  Implantable hearing devices.

Authors:  Matthias Tisch
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-12-18

6.  The development of active middle ear implants: A historical perspective and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Melodi Koşaner Kließ; Arne Ernst; Jan Wagner; Philipp Mittmann
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-10-06

7.  Three-year audiological outcomes of the latest generation middle ear transducer (MET) implant.

Authors:  Henryk Skarżyński; Beata Dziendziel; Elżbieta Włodarczyk; Piotr H Skarżyński
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 2.503

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.