Impact of the Surgical Approach: A Comparative Study between Transcanal and Posterior Tympanotomy Approach for Cochlear Implantation

N. Suri, S. Sandilya, R. Sayani, A. Anand
{"title":"Impact of the Surgical Approach: A Comparative Study between Transcanal and Posterior Tympanotomy Approach for Cochlear Implantation","authors":"N. Suri, S. Sandilya, R. Sayani, A. Anand","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1715293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction The aim of our study is to compare the surgical complications of the transcanal and posterior tympanotomy approach and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. Materials and Methods It is a prospective study involving 252 pediatric cochlear implant patients operated in the Department of ENT, GMERS Medical College and General Hospital, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. Out of these, 126 patients were operated by transcanal approach (group A) and 126 patients were operated by posterior tympanotomy approach (group B). Results No significant difference in the mean duration of surgery (p > 0.064) was observed in both the groups. Major complications occurred in 60.2% of group A and 3.1% of group B and minor complications occurred in 65% of group A and 3.1% in group B, which is highly significant (p < 0.0134). The categories of auditory perception, speech intelligibility rating scales, meaningful auditory integration scale, and meaningful use of speech scale were assessed in both groups. Conclusion Complication rate in the transcanal approach is higher as compared with posterior tympanotomy approach. A complete alignment and introduction of electrode array into the basal turn of cochlea is more favorable in the posterior tympanotomy approach. Transcanal technique even as an alternative may not be useful. Outcomes may be affected depending upon the technique chosen.","PeriodicalId":108664,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Otology and Neurotology","volume":"60 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Otology and Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The aim of our study is to compare the surgical complications of the transcanal and posterior tympanotomy approach and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. Materials and Methods It is a prospective study involving 252 pediatric cochlear implant patients operated in the Department of ENT, GMERS Medical College and General Hospital, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. Out of these, 126 patients were operated by transcanal approach (group A) and 126 patients were operated by posterior tympanotomy approach (group B). Results No significant difference in the mean duration of surgery (p > 0.064) was observed in both the groups. Major complications occurred in 60.2% of group A and 3.1% of group B and minor complications occurred in 65% of group A and 3.1% in group B, which is highly significant (p < 0.0134). The categories of auditory perception, speech intelligibility rating scales, meaningful auditory integration scale, and meaningful use of speech scale were assessed in both groups. Conclusion Complication rate in the transcanal approach is higher as compared with posterior tympanotomy approach. A complete alignment and introduction of electrode array into the basal turn of cochlea is more favorable in the posterior tympanotomy approach. Transcanal technique even as an alternative may not be useful. Outcomes may be affected depending upon the technique chosen.
手术入路对人工耳蜗植入术的影响:经鼻与后鼓室切开入路的比较研究
摘要:本研究的目的是比较经颅和后鼓室切开术的手术并发症,并评价两种技术的优缺点。材料与方法本研究是一项前瞻性研究,纳入印度古吉拉特邦甘地纳加尔GMERS医学院和总医院耳鼻喉科手术的252例儿童人工耳蜗患者。A组126例经鼻道入路,B组126例经后鼓室切开入路。结果两组平均手术时间差异无统计学意义(p > 0.064)。A组的严重并发症发生率为60.2%,B组为3.1%;A组的轻微并发症发生率为65%,B组为3.1%,差异有高度统计学意义(p < 0.0134)。对两组的听觉感知、语音可理解度评分量表、有意义听觉整合量表和有意义言语使用量表进行分类评估。结论经鼻入路并发症发生率高于后鼓室切开入路。在鼓室后切开术中,将电极阵列完全对准耳蜗基底部更有利。即使作为一种替代方法,经颅技术也未必有用。结果可能取决于所选择的技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信