Cochlear Implant Surgery: Endomeatal Approach versus Posterior Tympanotomy

Francesco Freni, Francesco Gazia, Victor Slavutsky, Enrique Perello Scherdel, Luis Nicenboim, Rodrigo Posada, Daniele Portelli, Bruno Galletti and Francesco Galletti
Additional contact information
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

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 12, 1-9

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.

Keywords: endomeatal approach; cochlear implant; hearing loss; posterior tympanotomy; tinnitus; without mastoidectomy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4187/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4187/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4187-:d:370472

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().