REVIEW PAPER
SURGICAL TECHNIQUES IN PARTIAL DEAFNESS TREATMENT
| 1 | Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, ul. Zgrupowania AK “Kampinos” 1, 01-943 Warsaw, Poland |
| 2 | World Hearing Center, Mokra 17, Kajetany 05-830 Nadarzyn, Poland |
| 3 | Institute of Sensory Organs, Mokra 1, Kajetany 05-830 Nadarzyn, Poland |
| 4 | Medical University of Warsaw, Otolaryngology and Rehabilitation Clinic of the Physiotherapy Division of the
Second Faculty of Medicine, Żwirki i Wigury 61, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland |
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Monika Matusiak
Monika Matusiak MD, PhD, Otorhinolaryngosurgery Clinic, World Hearing Center, Mokra 17, 05-830 Nadarzyn, Poland, e-mail: m.matusiak@ifps.org.pl
Monika Matusiak MD, PhD, Otorhinolaryngosurgery Clinic, World Hearing Center, Mokra 17, 05-830 Nadarzyn, Poland, e-mail: m.matusiak@ifps.org.pl
Publication date: 2012-09-30
J Hear Sci 2012;2(3):9–13
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
To maximise the success of cochlear implantation, optimal placement of the electrodes inside the cochlea is required. Hearing preservation also means that intracochlear spaces must be approached in a way that avoids traumatising inner ear structures.
Material and Methods:
In order to examine this issue a literature search was performed targeting articles on surgical techniques used in partial deafness cochlear implantation. The aim was to evaluate the advantages and shortcomings of each technique.
Results:
In cochlear implantation two main approaches to the middle ear have been described: mastoidectomy/posterior tympanostomy and suprameatal. Two approaches to the inner ear are in use: cochleostomy and round window.
Conclusions:
From temporal bone studies and clinical work some general conclusion can be drawn: straight arrays should use round window insertion, and precurved arrays should use cochleostomy
To maximise the success of cochlear implantation, optimal placement of the electrodes inside the cochlea is required. Hearing preservation also means that intracochlear spaces must be approached in a way that avoids traumatising inner ear structures.
Material and Methods:
In order to examine this issue a literature search was performed targeting articles on surgical techniques used in partial deafness cochlear implantation. The aim was to evaluate the advantages and shortcomings of each technique.
Results:
In cochlear implantation two main approaches to the middle ear have been described: mastoidectomy/posterior tympanostomy and suprameatal. Two approaches to the inner ear are in use: cochleostomy and round window.
Conclusions:
From temporal bone studies and clinical work some general conclusion can be drawn: straight arrays should use round window insertion, and precurved arrays should use cochleostomy
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller KE: Acoustic plus Electric Speech Processing: Preliminary Results of a Mulitcenter Clinical Trial of the Iowa/Nucleus Hybrid Implant. Audiol Neurotol, 2006; 11(Suppl.1): 63–68.
2.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Skarzynski PH: Hearing preservation in partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit, 2010; 16(11), CR555–62.
3.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A: Partial deafness treatment. Cochlear Implants Int, 2010; 11(Suppl.1): 29–41.
4.
Souter MA, Briggs RJS, Wright CG, Roland PS: Round window Insertion of precurved perimodiolar electrode arrays: how successful is it? Otol Neuroto, l2010; 32: 58–63.
5.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I: Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Otolaryngologica, 2007; 127: 41–48.
6.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, D’Haese P et al: Preservation of residual hearing in children and post-ligually deafened adults after cochlear implantation- an initial study. J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec, 2002; 64(4): 247–53.
7.
Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, Baumgartner WD et al: Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol, 2004; 124: 348–52.
8.
Punte AK, Vermeire K, Van de Heyning P: Bilateral electric acousticstimulation: a comparison of partial and deep cochlear electrodeinsertion. A longitudinal case study. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 144–52.
9.
Lenarz T, Stóver T, Buechner A et al: Temporal bone results and hearing preservation with a new straight electrode Audiol Neurotol, 2006; 11(Suppl.1): 34–41.
10.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Zgoda M et al: Atraumatic round window deep insertion of cochelar electrodes. Acta Otolaryngol, 2011; 131(7): 740–49.
11.
Carlson ML, Colin LW, Driscoll W et al: Implication of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol, 2011; 32: 962–68.
13.
Skarzynski H: Ten years experience with a new strategy of partial deafness treatment. Journal of Hearing Science, 2012; 2: 11–18.
14.
RolandPS, Wright OG, Isaacson B: Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope, 2007; 117: 1397–402.
15.
Postelmans JTF, van Sponses E, Grolman W et al: An evaluation of preservation of residual hearing using suprameatal approach for cochlear implantation: can this implantation technique be used for preservation of residual hearing? Laryngoscope, 2011; 34: 1444–47.
16.
Kronenberg J, Baumgartner WD, Migirov L et al: The suprameatal approach: an alternative surgical approach to cochlearimplantation. Otol Neurotol, 2004; 25: 41–45.
17.
Shapira Y, Sultan AA, Kronenberg J: The insertion trajectory in cochlear implantation – comparison between two approaches. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 2011; 131: 958–61.
18.
Briggs RJ, Tykocinski M, Xu J et al: Comparison of round window and cochleostomy approaches with a prototype hearing preservation electrode. Audiol Neurotol, 2006; 11: 42–48.
19.
Gantz BJ, Turner CW: Combining acoustic and electric hearing. Laryngoscope, 2003; 113: 1726–30.
20.
Cosetti M, Roland T: Cochlear implant electrode insertion Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology, 2010; 21: 223–32.
21.
Bruce IA, Homewood Mills Bates JE, Melling C et al: Hearing preservation via a cochleostomy approach and deep insertion of a standard length cochlear implant electrode. Otol Neurotol, 2011; 34: 1444–47.
22.
Kiefer J, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W et al: Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol, 2004; 124: 272–80.
23.
Berrettini S, Forli F, Passetti S: Preservation of residual hearing following cochlear implantation: comparison between three surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol, 2008; 122: 246–52.
24.
Wysocki J, Skarzynski H: Cochleostomy during the ontracochelar implantation. Anatomicla conditions in children and adults. Otolaryngol Pol, 1998; 52(6): 689–94.
25.
Verbist BM, Joemai RMS, Briaire JJ et al: Cochlear coordinates in regard to cochlear implantation: a clinically individually applicable 3 dimentional CT based method. Oto l Neurotol, 2010; 31: 738–44.
26.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M et al: Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiol Neurootol, 2012; 17(2): 82–91.
27.
Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH et al: Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation Otol Neurotol, 2011; 32: 962–68.
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.