Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:33:31.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2016

P Casserly ,
P L Friedland  and
M D Atlas
P Casserly*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head Neck and Skull Base Surgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia
P L Friedland
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head Neck and Skull Base Surgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia Ear Science Institute Australia, University of Western Australia Ear Sciences Centre, Perth, Australia
M D Atlas
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head Neck and Skull Base Surgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia Ear Science Institute Australia, University of Western Australia Ear Sciences Centre, Perth, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Ms Paula Casserly, Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, Dublin 2, Ireland E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Subtotal petrosectomy combined with cochlear implantation is a procedure required in specific situations.

Methods:

A retrospective review of all cases of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant surgery over a five-year period was performed. The indications, complications and outcomes for this procedure are outlined.

Results:

Sixteen patients underwent cochlear implantation in combination with subtotal petrosectomy and blind sac closure of the external auditory meatus from 2008 to 2013. Seventy-five per cent of these were completed as a two-stage procedure and 25 per cent as a single-stage procedure. The most common indications for the procedure were chronic otitis media, previous radical cavity, and for surgical access in challenging anatomy or in drill-out procedures. Mastoids were obliterated with fat or musculoperiosteal flaps. The complication rate relating to blind sac closure was 6 per cent. Cochlear implants were successfully placed in all cases and there was no incidence of device failure.

Conclusion:

For patients with chronic suppurative otitis media or existing mastoid cavities, subtotal petrosectomy with blind sac closure of the external auditory canal, closure of the eustachian tube, and cavity obliteration is an effective technique to facilitate safe cochlear implantation.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantsCholesteatomaOtitis MediaTympanic Membrane PerforationMeningitisMastoid
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Supplement S4 , July 2016 , pp. S35 - S40
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Leung, R, Briggs, RJ. Indications for and outcomes of mastoid obliteration in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:330–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Axon, PR, Mawman, DJ, Upile, T, Ramsden, RT. Cochlear implantation in the setting of chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 1997;111:228–32Google Scholar
3 Gray, RF, Ray, J, McFerran, DJ. Further experience with fat graft obliteration of mastoid cavities for cochlear implants. J Laryngol Otol 1999;113:881–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Xenellis, J, Nikolopoulos, TP, Marangoudakis, P, Vlastarakos, PV, Tsangaroulakis, A, Ferekidis, E. Cochlear implantation in atelectasis and chronic otitis media: long-term follow-up. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:499–501 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 El-Kashlan, HK, Arts, HA, Telian, SA. Cochlear implantation in chronic suppurative otitis media. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:53–5Google Scholar
6 Free, RH, Falcioni, M, Di Trapani, G, Giannuzzi, AL, Russo, A, Sanna, M. The role of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant surgery – a report of 32 cases and review on indications. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:1033–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Hamzavi, J, Baumgartner, W, Franz, P, Plenk, H. Radical cavities and cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:607–9Google Scholar
8 Vincenti, V, Pasanisi, E, Bacciu, A, Bacciu, S. Long-term results of external auditory canal closure and mastoid obliteration in cochlear implantation after radical mastoidectomy: a clinical and radiological study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2127–30Google Scholar
9 Fisch, U, Mattox, D. Microsurgery of the Skull Base. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1988 Google Scholar
10 Issing, PR, Schonermark, MP, Winkelmann, S, Kempf, HG, Ernst, A. Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic otitis: indications for subtotal petrosectomy and obliteration of the middle ear. Skull Base 1998;3:127–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Donnelly, MJ, Pyman, BC, Clark, GM. Chronic middle ear disease and cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;116:S406–8 Google Scholar
12 Postelmans, JT, Stokroos, RJ, Linmans, JJ, Kremer, B. Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic otitis media: 7 years’ experience in Maastricht. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:1159–65Google Scholar
13 Incesulu, A, Kocaturk, S, Vural, M. Cochlear implantation in chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:3–7 Google Scholar
14 Papsin, BC. Cochlear implantation in children with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy. Laryngoscope 2005;115(1 pt 2 suppl 106):1–26 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 O'Sullivan, PG, Atlas, MD. Use of soft tissue vascular flaps for mastoid cavity obliteration. Laryngoscope 2004;114:957–9Google Scholar