Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T08:28:08.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Various approaches to the round window for cochlear implantation: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2022

I Aljazeeri Open the ORCID record for I Aljazeeri [Opens in a new window] ,
S Alturaiki ,
Y Abdelsamad ,
F Alzhrani  and
A Hagr
I Aljazeeri*
Affiliation:
Aljaber Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology Specialized Hospital, Ministry of Health, Ahsa, Saudi Arabia King Abdullah Ear Specialist Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
S Alturaiki
Affiliation:
Aljaber Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology Specialized Hospital, Ministry of Health, Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
Y Abdelsamad
Affiliation:
Research Department, MED-EL GmbH, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
F Alzhrani
Affiliation:
King Abdullah Ear Specialist Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
A Hagr
Affiliation:
King Abdullah Ear Specialist Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
*
Author for correspondence: Dr I Aljazeeri, King Abdullah Ear Specialist Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, PO Box 245, Riyadh 11411, Saudi Arabia E-mail: dr.isra.aljazeeri@gmail.com Fax: +01 14 775 690
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Round window approaches are used to insert a cochlear implant electrode array into the scala tympani. This study aimed to review the literature to find the reported round window approaches.

Method

This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (‘PRISMA’) guidelines. Articles that described their surgical approach to the round window were included. The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched through to June 2021. The study protocol was registered on Prospero (reference number: CRD42021226940).

Results

A total of 42 reports were included. The following approaches were documented: the standard facial recess, keyhole, retrofacial, modified suprameatal, transaditus, combined posterior tympanotomy and endomeatal, modified Veria, canal wall down approaches, and endoscopically assisted technique.

Conclusion

This review suggested that there are numerous distinct round window approaches, providing alternatives when the round window is inaccessible through the standard facial recess.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear Round WindowEarSurgical Procedure
Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 10 , October 2023 , pp. 1064 - 1082
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

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.)

Footnotes

Dr I Aljazeeri takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Ying, Y, Lin, J, Oghalai, J, Williamson, R. Cochlear implant electrode misplacement: incidence, evaluation, and management. Laryngoscope 2013;123:757–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goycoolea, M, Lundman, L. Round window membrane. Structure function and permeability: a review. Microscopy Res Techniq 1997;36:201–11Google ScholarPubMed
Leong, AC, Jiang, D, Agger, A, Fitzgerald-O'Connor, A. Evaluation of round window accessibility to cochlear implant insertion. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:1237–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchioni, D, Soloperto, D, Guarnaccia, MC, Genovese, E, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Presutti, L. Endoscopic assisted cochlear implants in ear malformations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:2643–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pau, HW, Just, T, Bornitz, M, Lasurashvilli, N, Zahnert, T. Noise exposure of the inner ear during drilling a cochleostomy for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 2007;117:535–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, PS, Wright, CG, Isaacson, B. Cochlear implant electrode insertion: the round window revisited. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1397–402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finley, CC, Holden, TA, Holden, LK, Whiting, BR, Chole, RA, Neely, GJ et al. Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:920–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adunka, OF, Buchman, CA. Scala tympani cochleostomy I: results of a survey. Laryngoscope 2007;117:2187–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, E, Amoodi, H, Kuthubutheen, J, Chen, JM, Nedzelski, JM, Lin, VYW. Predictors of round window accessibility for adult cochlear implantation based on pre-operative CT scan: a prospective observational study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;44:20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, L-H, Tang, J, Miao, W-J, Tang, X-L, Li, H, Tang, A-Z. Preoperative evaluation of cochlear implantation through the round window membrane in the facial recess using high-resolution computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 2018;40:705–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lung, NH, Institute B. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies-NHLBI, NIH. In: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools [25 November 2022]Google Scholar
Rison, RA, Kidd, MR, Koch, CA. The CARE (Case Report) guidelines and the standardization of case reports. BioMed Central 2013;7:261Google ScholarPubMed
Kluenter, HD, Lang-Roth, R, Beutner, D, Hüttenbrink, KB, Guntinas-Lichius, O. Postural control before and after cochlear implantation: standard cochleostomy versus round window approach. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:696–701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quang, M, Duc, NP. Initial outcomes of cochlear implantation: a comparison of round window membrane and conventional bony cochleostomy. Arch Pharma Pract 2019;10:119–25Google Scholar
Gudis, DA, Montes, M, Bigelow, DC, Ruckenstein, MJ. The round window: is it the “cochleostomy” of choice? Experience in 130 consecutive cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1497–501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Migirov, L, Shapira, Y, Wolf, M. The feasibility of endoscopic transcanal approach for insertion of various cochlear electrodes: a pilot study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:1637–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taibah, K. The transmeatal approach: a new technique in cochlear and middle ear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2009;10:218–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, J, Wu, Y, Shi, J, Jia, H, Wang, Z, Zhang, Z et al. Predictors of round window membrane visibility in pediatric cochlear implant surgery using temporal bone HRCT: a retrospective study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019;121:150–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, BJ, Kim, AH. Comparison of cochlear implant performance after round window electrode insertion compared with traditional cochleostomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;148:822–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, X, Wang, B, Liu, Y, Yuan, Y, Shu, Y, Chen, B. Comparable electrode impedance and speech perception at 12 months after cochlear implantation using round window versus cochleostomy: an analysis of 40 patients. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2018;80:248–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galal, A, Eldin, OG, Baki, F, Sanna, M. Assessment of the preoperative computed tomographic predictability for round window membrane visibility and accessibility during cochlear implant surgery. Egypt J Otolaryngol 2019;35:278–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jang, JH, Choo, OS, Kim, H, Park, HY, Choung, YH. Round window membrane visibility related to success of hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2019;139:618–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bae, SC, Shin, YR, Chun, YM. Cochlear implant surgery through round window approach is always possible. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2019;128:38–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naderpour, M, Aminzadeh, Z, Moghaddam, JY, Pourshiri, B, Ariafar, A, Akhondi, A. Comparison of the pediatric cochlear implantation using round window and cochleostomy. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2020;32:3–10Google ScholarPubMed
Allen, KP, Bartels, LJ, Isaacson, B. Cochlear implantation requiring a retrofacial approach to the round window. Otol Neurol 2015;36:e84–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizk, H, O'Connell, B, Stevens, S, Meyer, T. Retrofacial approach to access the round window for cochlear implantation of malformed ears. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:e79–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, CC, Lin, CY, Wu, JL. Retrofacial approach of cochlear implantation in inner ear malformation with aberrant facial nerve: a case report. Auris Nasus Larynx 2006;33:179–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietz, A, Wüstefeld, M, Niskanen, M, Löppönen, H. Cochlear implant surgery in the elderly: the feasibility of a modified suprameatal approach under local anesthesia. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:487–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhavana, K, Bharti, B, Vishwakarma, R. Round window insertion in veria technique of cochlear implantation: an essential modification. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;71:1586–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House WF. Cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1976;85(suppl 27):1–93Google Scholar
House, WF. Surgical considerations in cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1982;91:15–20Google ScholarPubMed
Black, B. Keyhole cochlear implantation: current status. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1459–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al Sanosi, A. Trans-aditus approach: an alternative technique for cochlear implantation. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;64:142–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaca, M, Gutiérrez, A, Polo, R, Alonso, A, Álvarez, F. Long-term results of the transattical approach: an alternative technique for cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:35–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Volpe, AD, Cantore, I, Nolè, G, Valente, P, Varricchio, AM, Santandrea, M et al. Combined posterior tympanotomy/endomeatal access in cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2641–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavinsky, L, Lavinsky-Wolff, M, Lavinsky, J. Transcanal cochleostomy in cochlear implantation: experience with 50 cases. Cochlear Implants Int 2010 Dec;11:228–32Google ScholarPubMed
Surmelioglu, O, Ozdemir, S, Tarkan, O, Tuncer, Ü, Çetik, F, Kara, K et al. Techniques in cochlear implantation. J Int Adv Otol 2016;12:109–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiratzidis, T, Arnold, W, Iliades, T. Veria operation updated I. The trans-canal wall cochlear implantation. ORL J Otorhinolarngol Relat Spec 2002;64:406–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kronenberg, J, Migirov, L, Dagan T. Suprameatal approach: new surgical approach for cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:283–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kronenberg, J, Migirov, L, Baumgartner, WD. The suprameatal approach in cochlear implant surgery: our experience with 80 patients. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002;64:403–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mostafa, BE, Ezzat, WF, El Mogui, AM. The modified transcanal approach for cochlear implantation: technique and results. Adv Otolaryngol 2014;415821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H, An, JY, Choo, OS, Jang, JH, Park, HY, Choung, YH. Cochlear implantation via the transmeatal approach in an adolescent with hunter syndrome-type ii mucopolysaccharidosis. J Audiol Otol 2021;25:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wick, CC, Moore, AM, Killeen, DE, Isaacson, B. The modified ambo transcanal approach for cochlear implantation in CHARGE syndrome. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:1268–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carfrae, MJ, Foyt, D. Intact meatal skin, canal wall down approach for difficult cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:903–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, YH, Liu, TC, Yang, TH, Lin, KN, Wu, CC, Hsu, CJ. Using endoscopy to locate the round window membrane during cochlear implantation: our experience with 25 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:357–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nassif, N, Redaelli de Zinis, LO. Endoscopic approach to the round window through posterior tympanotomy for cochlear implantation in children: a study on feasibility. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020;129:109781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghonim, MR, Abo-Samra, MME, Moneir, W, El-Deeb, AH. Round window accessibility in transcanal approach. Egypt J Otolaryngol 2017;33:473–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, CY, Sun, CH, Lin, WL, Gotamco, GL, Hsu, CJ, Wu, HP. Modified transcanal cochlear implantation in CHARGE syndrome: a case report. Medicine 2019;98:e18283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchioni, D, Soloperto, D, Bianconi, L, Guarnaccia, MC, Genovese, E, Presutti, L. Endoscopic approach for cochlear implantation in advanced otosclerosis: a case report. Auris Nasus Larynx 2016;43:584–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elzayat, S, Soltan, I, Talaat, M, Fouad, YA. The role of high-resolution computer tomography in prediction of the round window membrane visibility and the feasibility of the round window electrode insertion. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;278:3283–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pendem, SK, Rangasami, R, Arunachalam, RK, Mohanarangam, VS, Natarajan, P. HRCT correlation with round window identification during cochlear implantation in children. J Clin Imaging Sci 2014;4:70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rashad Ghoneim, MM, Ghonim, MR, Mohamed Badawy, AA, Abdel Razek, AAK, Salam Hafez, MA, Hamad, MS et al. Combined preoperative HRCT parameters for prediction of round window visibility in pediatric cochlear implant patient. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2021;140:110521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasaballah, MS, Hamdy, TA. Evaluation of facial nerve course, posterior tympanotomy width and visibility of round window in patients with cochlear implantation by performing oblique sagittal cut computed tomographic scan temporal bone. Egypt J Otolaryngol 2014;30:317–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, SE, Holland, NJ, Agger, A, Leong, AC, Varghese, RA, Jiang, D et al. Round window electrode insertion potentiates retention in the scala tympani. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:932–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erixon, E, Köbler, S, Rask-Andersen, H. Cochlear implantation and hearing preservation: results in 21 consecutively operated patients using the round window approach. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:923–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, X, Xia, M, Wang, Z, Zhang, H, Liu, C, Wang, N et al. Comparison of electrode position between round window and cochleostomy inserting approaches among young children: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Acta Otolaryngol 2018;138:815–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiam, NT, Limb, CJ. The impact of round window vs cochleostomy surgical approaches on interscalar excursions in the cochlea: preliminary results from a flat-panel computed tomography study. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;2:142–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todt, I, Rademacher, G, Wagner, J, Göpel, F, Basta, D, Haider, E et al. Evaluation of cochlear implant electrode position after a modified round window insertion by means of a 64-multislice CT. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:966–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamerschmidt, R, Schuch, LH, Rezende, RK, Wiemes, GR, Oliveira, AK, Mocellin, M. A comparison between neural response telemetry via cochleostomy or the round window approach in cochlear implantation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2012;78:71–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuermer, KJ, Kluenter, HD, Lang-Roth, R, Schwarz, D, Hüttenbrink, KB, Anagiotos, A. Preservation of vestibular function and residual hearing after round window cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:878–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuermer, K, Winter, T, Nachtsheim, L, Klussmann, JP, Luers, JC. Round window accessibility during cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:363–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, RJ, Tykocinski, M, Xu, J, Risi, F, Svehla, M, Cowan, R et al. Comparison of round window and cochleostomy approaches with a prototype hearing preservation electrode. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11(suppl 1):42–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, NL. Cochlear implant soft surgery: fact or fantasy? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:214–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wanna, GB, Noble, JH, Gifford, RH, Dietrich, MS, Sweeney, AD, Zhang, D et al. Impact of intrascalar electrode location, electrode type, and angular insertion depth on residual hearing in cochlear implant patients: preliminary results. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:1343–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, B, Yin, S, Shen, P. The feasibility of the retrofacial approach to the pediatric sinus tympani. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133:780–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, JT Jr, Hoffman, RA, Miller, PJ, Cohen, NL. Retrofacial approach to the hypotympanum. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:233–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J, Sun, J, Sun, J, Chen, J. Variations in electrode impedance during and after cochlear implantation: round window versus extended round window insertions. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;102:44–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed