Cochlear Implant Surgery: Endomeatal Approach versus Posterior Tympanotomy.

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).

Comparison of complications by technique used in cochlear implants.

Introduction: Complications are a very sensitive indicator of the usefulness of a surgical technique. In cochlear implant surgery, there are 3 principal approaches: the classic approach uses the facial recess (FR), the suprameatal approach (SMA) does not require mastoidectomy and uses the creation of a tunnel over the facial nerve to enter the middle ear, and the endomeatal approach (EMA) is based on the completion of a groove in the posterior wall of external auditory canal.

Material And Methods: A multicentre review of 208 patients with cochlear implants, comparing the different techniques.

Preliminary results in cochlear implant surgery without antromastoidectomy and with atraumatic electrode insertion: the endomeatal approach.

A surgical approach using the external auditory canal and the round window as a natural access pathway for cochlear implant positioning, the endomeatal approach, is described. This approach avoids performing an antromastoidectomy, the subsequent posterior tympanotomy and the promontorial cochleostomy. The endomeatal approach also allows an optimal insertion plane for electrode array atraumatic insertion through the round window.