Radiological parameters related to success of the round window approach in cochlear implantation: A retrospective study

• Published in: Clinical otolaryngology 2018-12, Vol.43 (6), p.1535-1540
• Main Authors: Kang, Jae‐Yoon, Chung, Jee‐Hye, Park, Hee‐Sung, Park, Yong‐Ho, Choi, Jin Woong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Cochlea; cochlear implant; cochlear implantation; Cochlear Implantation - methods; Cochlear implants; Facial nerve; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hearing - physiology; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - diagnosis; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - physiopathology; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - surgery; Humans; Implantation; Infant; Inner ear; Male; Medical personnel; Middle Aged; Multivariate analysis; Parameters; Patients; radiology; Retrospective Studies; round window; Round Window, Ear - diagnostic imaging; Success; Temporal Bone - diagnostic imaging; temporal bone computed tomography; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; Treatment Outcome; Tympanoplasty - methods; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1749-4478; 1749-4486
• DOI: 10.1111/coa.13207

Objectives To evaluate the radiologic parameters related to success of round window (RW) approach for cochlear implantation (CI). Design A retrospective cohort study. Setting Academic‐tertiary centre. Participants Eighty‐four consecutive patients without inner ear anomaly who underwent CI with the intent of the RW approach were included. The RW approach was performed through the facial recess after posterior tympanotomy (RW group). When the RW approach was not possible despite maximum effort to expose the RW, promontory cochleostomy (PC) was performed (PC group). Main outcome measures The following radiologic parameters were compared between the two groups: (a) Width of the facial recess, (b) oblique distance between the cochlear basal turn (CBT) and facial nerve (FN), (c) anteroposterior distance between the posterior margin of the RW and FN and (d) angle between the EAC and CBT. Results Seventy patients (83.3%) were implanted using the RW approach, and 14 patients (16.7%) underwent the PC approach for CI. The anteroposterior distance between the posterior margin of the RW and FN and the angle between the EAC and CBT in the RW group were significantly longer and wider than those in the PC group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that these two parameters were independent parameters for success of the RW approach. Conclusions The distance between the posterior margin of the RW and FN and the angle between the EAC and CBT are associated with success of RW approach. Therefore, preoperative radiologic analysis of the two parameters might help CI surgeons to select RW approach.