Systematic radiographic evaluation of three potential implantation sites for a semi-implantable bone conduction device in 52 patients after previous mastoid surgery
- 216 Downloads
The aim of this study was the evaluation of three localizations for the implantation of a semi-implantable transcutaneous bone conduction device after previous mastoid surgery. This is a retrospective review of electronic datasets of cranial computed tomography studies. The study setting is one tertiary referral center and included 52 consecutive adult patients (60 temporal bones) with a history of mastoid surgery. The intervention was virtual placement of the device with a planning software within the remaining mastoid as well as dorsal of the sigmoid sinus and caudal of the transverse sinus (retrosigmoidal localization) and dorsocranial of the parietomastoid suture and cranial of the transverse sinus (parietal localization). The main outcome measure included dimensions of the bone for the reception of implant and screws, relative localization of dura mater or sinus sigmoideus, distance to the cochlea, thickness of the epicranium and classification of implantation as possible or impossible. Implantation within the remaining mastoid was deemed possible in 35 mastoid bones (58.3%). The best-suited alternative localization was retrosigmoidal in 22 (42.3%) and parietal in 29 patients (55.8%). The mean distance from the implantation site to the cochlea was lowest with on average 41.2 ± 3.1 mm from within the remaining mastoid. The differences in distance from the cochlea to the alternative localizations were each statistically significant (p < 0.01, ANOVA/Bonferroni t test). The retrosigmoidal and parietal localizations are suitable alternative implantation sites. The application of spacers may prevent contact to the sinuses or dura. Preoperative CT-based planning is recommended in cases of previous mastoid surgery.
Level of evidence
4 (case series).
KeywordsCorrection of hearing impairment Otologic surgical procedures Hearing aids X-Ray computed tomography Temporal bone
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest and source of funding
The authors did not receive payment or support in kind for any aspect of the submitted work. FI and MC received travel grants and the reimbursement of congress fees in the past from MED-EL GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.
Review board approval
This study was approved according to the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration by the responsible institutional review board (Ethikkommission der Universitätsmedizin Göttingen) with the reference number 14/12/15An.
- 3.Ihler F, Bewarder J, Blum J, Matthias C, Canis M (2014) Long-term functional outcome and satisfaction of patients with an active middle ear implant for sensorineural hearing loss compared to a matched population with conventional hearing aids. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(12):3161–3169. doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2811-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Sprinzl G, Lenarz T, Ernst A, Hagen R, Wolf-Magele A, Mojallal H, Todt I, Mlynski R, Wolframm MD (2013) First European multicenter results with a new transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant system: short-term safety and efficacy. Otol Neurotol 34(6):1076–1083. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31828bb541 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Sirikci A, Bayazit YA, Kervancioglu S, Ozer E, Kanlikama M, Bayram M (2004) Assessment of mastoid air cell size versus sigmoid sinus variables with a tomography-assisted digital image processing program and morphometry. Surg Radiol Anatomy 26(2):145–148. doi: 10.1007/s00276-003-0201-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hassepass F, Bulla S, Aschendorff A, Maier W, Traser L, Steinmetz C, Wesarg T, Arndt S (2015) The bonebridge as a transcutaneous bone conduction hearing system: preliminary surgical and audiological results in children and adolescents. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(9):2235–2241. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3137-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar