Subtotal Petrosectomy and Cochlear Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Cochlear Implantation | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  PRISMA Diagram of Search Strategy
PRISMA Diagram of Search Strategy
Figure 2.  Forest Plot of Pooled Complication Rate Using Meta-analysis of Proportions
Forest Plot of Pooled Complication Rate Using Meta-analysis of Proportions
Table 1.  Overview of Included Studies
Overview of Included Studies
Table 2.  Preexisting Ear Disorders and Indications for STP
Preexisting Ear Disorders and Indications for STP
Table 3.  Complications, Reoperations, and Device Status
Complications, Reoperations, and Device Status
1.
Fisch  U, Mattox  DE.  Microsurgery of the Skull Base. Thieme; 1988.
2.
Katzenell  U, Halperin  D.  Subtotal petrosectomy with blind sac closure of the external auditory canal—indications and results.   J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130(suppl S3):S83-S84. doi:10.1017/S002221511600342X Google Scholar
3.
Prasad  SC, Roustan  V, Piras  G, Caruso  A, Lauda  L, Sanna  M.  Subtotal petrosectomy: surgical technique, indications, outcomes, and comprehensive review of literature.   Laryngoscope. 2017;127(12):2833-2842. doi:10.1002/lary.26533 PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Sudhoff  H, Linthicum  FH  Jr.  Temporal bone fracture and latent meningitis: temporal bone histopathology study of the month.   Otol Neurotol. 2003;24(3):521-522. doi:10.1097/00129492-200305000-00029 PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Kurkure  R, Rayamajhi  P, Castellino  A,  et al.  Subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant surgery: our experience.   Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;72(3):320-325. doi:10.1007/s12070-020-01819-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Rabinowitz  PM.  Noise-induced hearing loss.   Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(9):2749-2756, 2759-2760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Gorlin  RJ, Gorlin  RJ, Toriello  HV, Cohen  MM.  Hereditary Hearing Loss and Its Syndromes. Oxford University Press; 1995.
8.
Gray  RF, Irving  RM.  Cochlear implants in chronic suppurative otitis media.   Am J Otol. 1995;16(5):682-686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Axon  PR, Mawman  DJ, Upile  T, Ramsden  RT.  Cochlear implantation in the presence of chronic suppurative otitis media.   J Laryngol Otol. 1997;111(3):228-232. doi:10.1017/S0022215100136977 PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Bendet  E, Cerenko  D, Linder  TE, Fisch  U.  Cochlear implantation after subtotal petrosectomies.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1998;255(4):169-174. doi:10.1007/s004050050037 PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Issing  PR, Schönermark  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 Surg. 1998;8(3):127-131. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1058571 PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. OCEBM levels of evidence. Published May 1, 2016. Accessed September 11, 2020. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
13.
Sterne  JA, Hernán  MA, McAleenan  A, Reeves  BC, Higgins  JP. Assessing risk of bias in a non-randomized study. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0. 2019:621-641. Accessed September 11, 2020. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-25
14.
Sterne  JA, Hernán  MA, Reeves  BC,  et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.   BMJ. 2016;355:i4919-i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Freeman  MF, Tukey  JW.  Transformations related to the angular and the square root.   Ann Math Stat. 1950;21(4):607-611. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729756 Google Scholar
16.
DerSimonian  R, Laird  N.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.   Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Egger  M, Davey Smith  G, Schneider  M, Minder  C.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.   BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Sterne  JA, Egger  M.  Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(10):1046-1055. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Sterne  JAC, Sutton  AJ, Ioannidis  JPA,  et al.  Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.   BMJ. 2011;343:d4002. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Altuna  X, García  L, Martínez  Z, de Pinedo  MF.  The role of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant recipients.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(12):4149-4153. doi:10.1007/s00405-017-4762-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Barañano  CF, Kopelovich  JC, Dunn  CC, Gantz  BJ, Hansen  MR.  Subtotal petrosectomy and mastoid obliteration in adult and pediatric cochlear implant recipients.   Otol Neurotol. 2013;34(9):1656-1659. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182a006b6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Basavaraj  S, Shanks  M, Sivaji  N, Allen  AA.  Cochlear implantation and management of chronic suppurative otitis media: single stage procedure?   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;262(10):852-855. doi:10.1007/s00405-004-0907-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Bernardeschi  D, Nguyen  Y, Smail  M,  et al.  Middle ear and mastoid obliteration for cochlear implant in adults: indications and anatomical results.   Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(4):604-609. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000702 PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Casserly  P, Friedland  PL, Atlas  MD.  The role of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implantation.   J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130(suppl 4):S35-S40. doi:10.1017/S0022215116000979 PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Elmas  F, Shrestha  BL, Linder  TE.  Subtotal petrosectomy and cochlear implant placement in otologic presentation of “Wegener’s granulomatosis”.   Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2017;15(57):94-98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Gray  RF, Ray  J, McFerran  DJ.  Further experience with fat graft obliteration of mastoid cavities for cochlear implants.   J Laryngol Otol. 1999;113(10):881-884. doi:10.1017/S0022215100145499 PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Hamzavi  J, Baumgartner  W, Franz  P, Plenk  H.  Radical cavities and cochlear implantation.   Acta Otolaryngol. 2001;121(5):607-609. doi:10.1080/000164801316878908 PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Husseini  ST, Guida  M, Negri  M, Falcioni  M.  Bilateral cochlear implantation in a patient with petrous bone cholesteatoma in the only hearing ear: case report.   J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125(12):1272-1274. doi:10.1017/S0022215111002362 PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Ketelslagers  K, Somers  T, De Foer  B, Zarowski  A, Offeciers  E.  Results, hearing rehabilitation, and follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging after tympanomastoid exenteration, obliteration, and external canal overclosure for severe chronic otitis media.   Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116(9):705-711. doi:10.1177/000348940711600914 PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Kojima  H, Sakurai  Y, Rikitake  M, Tanaka  Y, Kawano  A, Moriyama  H.  Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic otitis media.   Auris Nasus Larynx. 2010;37(4):415-421. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2010.01.009 PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Leung  R, Briggs  RJS.  Indications for and outcomes of mastoid obliteration in cochlear implantation.   Otol Neurotol. 2007;28(3):330-334. doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000265187.45216.71 PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Pasanisi  E, Vincenti  V, Bacciu  A,  et al.  Multichannel cochlear implantation in radical mastoidectomy cavities.   Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;127(5):432-436. doi:10.1067/mhn.2002.129822 PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Polo  R, Del Mar Medina  M, Arístegui  M,  et al.  Subtotal petrosectomy for cochlear implantation: lessons learned after 110 cases.   Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016;125(6):485-494. doi:10.1177/0003489415620427 PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Postelmans  JTF, Stokroos  RJ, Linmans  JJ, Kremer  B.  Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic otitis media: 7 years’ experience in Maastricht.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(8):1159-1165. doi:10.1007/s00405-008-0842-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Selivanova  O, Gouveris  H, Mann  W.  Cochlear implantation after surgery for bilateral jugular foramen paragangliomas: a case report.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(3):463-464. doi:10.1007/s00405-008-0680-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Sugimoto  H, Hatano  M, Noda  M, Hasegawa  H, Yoshizaki  T.  Cochlear implantation in deaf patients with eosinophilic otitis media using subtotal petrosectomy and mastoid obliteration.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(2):1173-1177. doi:10.1007/s00405-016-4091-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Szymański  M, Ataide  A, Linder  T.  The use of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant candidates with chronic otitis media.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(2):363-370. doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3573-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Tawfik  KO, Golub  JS, Roland  JT, Samy  RN.  Recurrent cochlear implant infection treated with exteriorization and partial mastoid obliteration.   Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(1):58-61. doi:10.1179/1754762815Y.0000000010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Vashishth  A, Fulcheri  A, Prasad  SC,  et al.  Cochlear implantation in cochlear ossification: retrospective review of etiologies, surgical considerations, and auditory outcomes.   Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(1):17-28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Vincenti  V, Di Lella  F, Falcioni  M, Negri  M, Zanetti  D.  Cochlear implantation in children with CHARGE syndrome: a report of eight cases.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(8):1987-1993. doi:10.1007/s00405-018-5053-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
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(8):2127-2130. doi:10.1007/s00405-013-2698-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Yoon  YH, Lee  JB, Chung  JH, Park  KW, Kim  BJ, Choi  JW.  Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media: surgical outcomes and a management algorithm.   Audiol Neurootol. 2020;25(3):151-157. doi:10.1159/000505509 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Belal  A  Jr.  Contraindications to cochlear implantation.   Am J Otol. 1986;7(3):172-175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Nikolopoulos  TP, O’Donoghue  GM, Archbold  S.  Age at implantation: its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation.   Laryngoscope. 1999;109(4):595-599. doi:10.1097/00005537-199904000-00014 PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Briggs  RJ, Luxford  WM.  Chronic ear surgery: a historical review.   Am J Otol. 1994;15(4):558-567.PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Roberson  JB  Jr, Mason  TP, Stidham  KR.  Mastoid obliteration: autogenous cranial bone pate reconstruction.   Otol Neurotol. 2003;24(2):132-140. doi:10.1097/00129492-200303000-00002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Hunter  JB, O’Connell  BP, Wanna  GB.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical complications following cochlear implantation in canal wall down mastoid cavities.   Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(4):555-563. doi:10.1177/0194599816651239 PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Neudert  M, Lailach  S, Lasurashvili  N, Kemper  M, Beleites  T, Zahnert  T.  Cholesteatoma recidivism: comparison of three different surgical techniques.   Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(10):1801-1808. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000484 PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Cass  ND, Honce  JM, O’Dell  AL, Gubbels  SP.  First MRI with new cochlear implant with rotatable internal magnet system and proposal for standardization of reporting magnet-related artifact size.   Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(7):883-891. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002269 PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Yung  M.  The use of temporoparietal fascial flap to eliminate wound breakdown in subtotal petrosectomy for chronic discharging ears.   Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(3):248-251. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000959 PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Lyutenski  S, Schwab  B, Lenarz  T, Salcher  R, Majdani  O.  Impact of the surgical wound closure technique on the revision surgery rate after subtotal petrosectomy.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(11):3641-3646. doi:10.1007/s00405-016-4005-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    October 15, 2020

    Subtotal Petrosectomy and Cochlear Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;147(1):23-33. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2020.3380
    Key Points

    Question  What are the indications for and complications of subtotal petrosectomy (STP) for cochlear implantation?

    Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis with 27 unique studies and 397 unique STP procedures performed on 377 patients for cochlear implantation, the global complication rate was 12.4% and the cholesteatoma recidivism rate was 9.3%. The most common indications for STP included chronic otitis media, preexisting mastoid cavity, and cholesteatoma, and complication rates were not significantly different across single-stage vs multistage procedures, or in pediatric vs adult populations.

    Meaning  This study’s findings suggest that STP is a safe and effective method in preparing the ear for cochlear implantation.

    Abstract

    Importance  Subtotal petrosectomy (STP) has been more frequently performed to prepare ears with unfavorable conditions for cochlear implantation.

    Objectives  To provide an overview of indications for and complications of STP and cochlear implantation and to compare outcomes between single vs multistage procedures and between pediatric vs adult populations.

    Data Sources  A search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library was performed from the databases’ inception to January 23, 2020, for studies evaluating STP for cochlear implantation.

    Study Selection  Studies with a minimum follow-up of 3 months and no missing data regarding postoperative outcomes were included. Of the initial 570 studies identified, 27 (4.7%) met selection criteria.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis  Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines; discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Extracted data included patient demographics, indications for STP, rates of complications, and cholesteatoma recidivism when applicable. Data were pooled using a random- or a fixed-effects model when appropriate.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary study outcome was rate of global complications stratified by patient- and surgery-level characteristics.

    Results  Twenty-seven unique studies with 377 unique patients (54.2% male; mean age, 50.6 [range, 1-99] years) undergoing 397 STP procedures and cochlear implantation were included. Of these procedures, 299 of 394 cases with the information reported (75.9%) were single procedures and 95 (24.1%) were multistage procedures. Of the total 397 STP procedures, most common indications included chronic otitis media (220 cases [55.4%]), previous open mastoid cavity (141 [35.5%]), cholesteatoma (74 [18.6%]), and cochlear ossification (29 [7.3%]). The overall complication rate was 12.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-15.9%); overall cholesteatoma recidivism rate was 9.3% (95% CI, 4.3%-17.1%). Complication rates did not significantly differ based on stage or age of patients. Cases with cholesteatoma more often underwent multistage vs single-stage procedures (23 of 54 [42.6%] vs 35 of 174 [20.1%]).

    Conclusions and Relevance  Across all age groups, STP has been shown to be an effective surgical operation in preparing an ear with unfavorable conditions for cochlear implantation. The potential indications for which cochlear implantation can be performed have expanded with the use of STP. Presence of cholesteatoma might indicate that a multistage procedure should be performed. Lastly, with complication rates comparable to those in adult patients, STP can be considered in children requiring cochlear implantation to minimize ear-related issues and allow benefit from cochlear implantation.

    Introduction

    The role of subtotal petrosectomy (STP) in preparing a diseased ear for cochlear implantation has expanded. Because STP involves complete exenteration of all air cells of the temporal bone, obliteration of the mastoid cavity, and closure of the external auditory canal (EAC) and eustachian tube, the resulting sterile field is optimal for cochlear implantation.1 Subtotal petrosectomy is indicated for extensive infectious middle ear disease, temporal bone or skull base tumors, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and potential infectious sequelae after temporal bone fractures.2-5 Subtotal petrosectomy results in maximal conductive hearing loss in addition to any cochlear or sensorineural loss. Additional surgery, such as placement of an osseointegrated implant, can generally overcome the conductive loss if the cochlear reserve is reasonable. For patients with poor underlying sensorineural hearing, an osseointegrated device can provide stimulation to the contralateral ear, or a cochlear implant can be used to stimulate the ear in question.

    Multiple ear disorders and conditions, such as noise exposure, ototoxic medications, congenital malformations, and infectious ear disease, lead to severe sensorineural hearing loss and consideration of cochlear implantation.3,6,7 Many of these problems pose concerns for cochlear implantation, because placement of a foreign object into an unfavorable environment increases the potential for infection. The late 1990s saw the introduction of STP for cochlear implantation as a viable option for ears with chronic disease or unfavorable conditions.8-11 Since then, STP has grown in popularity as an effective surgical option to seal off the middle ear and mastoid cavity from the external environment.

    Multiple retrospective studies have described STP with cochlear implantation, either performed simultaneously in a single operation or in separate stages. The consideration and timing of a second procedure depend on the condition of the ear, because active inflammation and/or presence of cholesteatoma weigh into the decisions involving a staged operation. Varying graft materials have proven effective for mastoid obliteration, including abdominal fat, musculoperiosteal flaps, and bone pate.3 To date, a review of the literature in evaluating STP for cochlear implantation has not been conducted. Therefore, we have performed a systematic review to provide an overview of the indications for and complications of STP with cochlear implantation. Secondarily, we compared complication rates between single-stage vs multistage procedures, with differing graft materials, and in pediatric vs adult populations.

    Methods
    Search Strategy

    This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases were queried from inception to January 23, 2020, for studies assessing STP performed for cochlear implantation. The search strategy included a combination of the following search terms: subtotal petrosectomy, mastoid obliteration, cochlear implant, and cochlear implantation. In addition, a manual review of included references was performed from which 1 additional study was included.

    Study Selection and Data Extraction

    Inclusion criteria consisted of (1) STP or mastoid obliteration with overclosure of the EAC and eustachian tube, (2) cochlear implantation, (3) data regarding indications for STP and complications, and (4) minimum follow-up of 3 months. Given the relative scarcity of STP performed with cochlear implantation, case reports and series were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of (1) letters or reviews, (2) overlapping data from another study, (3) non-English language, and (4) nonhuman subjects. Two authors (F.Y. and P.D.R.) independently assessed study eligibility; any disputes were resolved by a third author (S.A.N.).

    Extracted data included country of publication, study design, and patient and surgery characteristics. Specific patient characteristics included sex, age, follow-up time, indications for STP, and rates of cholesteatoma recidivism if applicable. Specific procedure-based characteristics included single-stage vs multistage procedure, obliteration graft material, and rates of complications, reoperations, and device dysfunction or failure.

    Quality Assessment

    The level of evidence of each study was evaluated using the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria.12 Next, risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0.13 Specifically, the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Nonrandomised Studies) tool was used because this systematic review evaluated nonrandomized studies.14 Two authors (F.Y. and P.D.R.) performed a pilot assessment on 3 studies to check for consistency of assessment. Both then performed independent risk assessments on the remaining studies. All disagreements were resolved by a third author (S.A.N.). Risk of bias items included bias due to confounding, in selection of participants into the study, in classification of interventions, due to deviations from intended interventions, due to missing data, in measurement of outcomes, and in selection of reported results. The risk of bias for each aspect was graded as low, unclear, or high.

    Statistical Analysis

    All statistical analyses were performed with MedCalc, version 18.10.2 (MedCalc Software). Meta-analysis of proportions was performed to pool rates of complications, device dysfunction or failure, cholesteatoma recidivism, and reoperation. The program MedCalc lists the proportions (expressed as a percentages) with their 95% CIs found in the individual studies included in the analysis. The weighted summary proportion is calculated by the Freeman-Tukey transformation.15 This pooled proportion is reported with 95% CIs for both fixed-effects and random-effects models.16 Both fixed-effects and random-effects models were used in this study. If there was high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), then a random-effects model was used; if low heterogeneity, then a fixed-effects model was allowable.

    Finally, the Sterne and Egger tests were performed for further assessment of risk of publication bias.17,18 Potential publication bias was evaluated by visual inspection of the funnel plot. In a funnel plot, treatment effect is plotted on the horizontal axis and the standard error is on the vertical axis.19 The vertical line represents the summary estimate derived using fixed-effect meta-analysis. Two diagonal lines represent (pseudo) 95% confidence limits (effect ±1.96 standard error) around the summary effect for each standard error on the vertical axis. These show the expected distribution of studies in the absence of heterogeneity or selection bias. In the absence of heterogeneity, 95% of the studies should lie within the funnel defined by these diagonal lines. Publication bias results in asymmetry of the funnel plot.

    Results
    Search Results

    Of 570 initially identified articles, 403 underwent title and abstract screening. This process eliminated 317 articles, leaving 86 for full-text review. Twenty-seven unique studies were included for final analysis (Figure 1).5,9-11,20-42

    Overall Study Characteristics

    Table 1 provides an overview of all included studies. Each study’s level of evidence was assessed according to the 2011 Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria.12 Evidence in 14 studies was level 4 and in 13 studies was level 2b. The risk of bias and heterogeneity were assessed for each included study (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). A funnel plot demonstrated all plots lying within the funnel, indicating little to no publication bias (eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

    The 27 included studies5,9-11,20-42 consisted of a total of 397 STP and cochlear implantation procedures performed in 377 unique patients. The overall mean age was 50.6 (range, 1-99) years, with 202 male (54.2%) and 171 female (45.8%) patients, and sex not reported for 4. The mean follow-up time was 36.7 (range, 3-252) months. Of the 25 studies5,9-11,20-30,32,34-42 reporting individual patient data, 33 of 261 (12.6%) were pediatric patients and 228 (87.4%) were adult patients. Of the 26 studies5,9-11,20-39,41,42 reporting single-stage vs multistage procedures, 299 of 394 cases (75.9%) were conducted in a single stage and 95 (24.1%) were conducted in a 2-stage procedure, with 92 of these (96.8%) having STP before cochlear implantation and 3 (3.2%) having STP after cochlear implantation. The time between stages ranged from 3 to 72 months. In terms of obliteration material, 308 cases (77.8%) used abdominal fat graft, 74 (18.7%) used a vascularized (musculoperiosteal or temporoparietal fascial) flap, 10 (2.5%) used both abdominal fat and a vascularized flap, and 2 (0.5%) used hydroxyapatite or bone graft. For 2 cases (0.5%), the obliteration material was unknown.

    Indications for STP

    Table 2 provides the indications for STP. These included chronic suppurative or nonsuppurative otitis media in 220 cases (55.4%), a preexisting open mastoid cavity in 141 (35.5%), cholesteatoma in 74 (18.6%), other indications in 44 (11.1%), cochlear ossification in 29 (7.3%), inner ear malformations in 16 (4.0%), temporal bone fracture in 15 (3.8%), other unfavorable anatomy in 17 (4.3%), and previous STP requiring revision in 7 (1.8%).

    Of the 17 cases with unfavorable anatomy, 4 included a sclerotic mastoid with an anterior sigmoid sinus; 3, temporal bone malformations; and 10, unspecified. Of the 16 cases of inner ear malformation, 4 resulted from Mondini dysplasia or incomplete partition type 2; 2, an aplastic or hypoplastic cochlea; and 10, unspecified. Of the 44 other indications for STP, 9 were recurrent acute otitis media; 2, atelectasis or retraction; 2, cerebrospinal fluid leak; 2, papillary adenomas of the temporal bone; 2, meningitis; 2, unknown; 1, granulomatosis with polyangiitis causing otitis media; 1, otosclerosis with unknown cochlear ossification; 2, tumefactive inflammatory pseudotumor of the temporal bone; 3, acute eosinophilic otitis media; 8, previous surgery not specified; 1, head trauma without fracture; 1, jugular foramen paraganglioma; 1, osteoradionecrosis of the temporal bone after cobalt irradiation; 1, previous cochlear implant electrode array extruded into an open cavity; 3, temporal bone abnormalities from CHARGE (coloboma, heart defects, atresia choanae, growth retardation, genital abnormalities, and ear abnormalities) syndrome; 2, failed simultaneous mastoidectomy and cochlear implantation procedures; and 1, device explantation from infection.

    STP Outcomes

    Table 3 provides an overview of complications, cholesteatoma recidivism, reoperations, and device dysfunction or failures. The pooled complication rate was 12.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-15.9%) (Figure 2); the pooled cholesteatoma recidivism rate was 9.3% (95% CI, 4.3%-17.1%); the pooled rate of reoperation was 10.2% (95% CI, 7.5%-13.4%); and the pooled rate of device dysfunction/failure was 7.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-10.2%). Of the 5 total cases of cholesteatoma recidivism, 4 resulted from recurrent disease and 1 resulted from residual disease. Three of these were removed during a second-stage operation simultaneously with cochlear implantation. Two of these were found at points past STP and cochlear implantation and required revision procedures.

    Of the 48 reported complications (12.4% [95% CI, 9.4%-15.9%] pooled complication rate), the most common types of complications included 11 (22.9%) wound infections, 13 (27.1%) surgical site wound breakdowns, 4 (8.3%) abdominal hematomas, 4 (8.3%) cases of noninfectious inflammation, 5 (10.4%) facial palsies, 4 (8.3%) recurrent and 1 residual (2.1%) cholesteatomas, 2 (4.2%) cases of postoperative vertigo, 2 (4.2%) seromas, 2 (4.2%) cases of subcutaneous air accumulation, and 1 (2.1%) case of subcutaneous cerebrospinal fluid. Of the 13 surgical site wound breakdowns, 9 were related to the EAC blind sac closure, 2 were retroauricular fistulas, and 2 were unspecified wound breakdowns. One patient had both a wound infection causing explantation of the cochlear implant as well as recurrent cholesteatoma. Of the 4 cases of noninfectious inflammation, 1 included canal granulation, 1 included tumefactive inflammation, and 2 resulted from a foreign body reaction. Of the 5 facial palsies, 1 was permanent and 4 were transient.

    Of the 39 cases requiring reoperation, 21 (53.8%) were related to cochlear implant repositioning, implantation, or explantation, and 18 (46.2%) were related to revision of the STP procedure. These 18 cases included 6 for revision of EAC closure, 4 for unspecified wound closure, 4 for recurrent cholesteatoma, 2 for reablation of the eustachian tube, 1 for wound debridement, and 1 for reversal of the mastoid obliteration.

    Of the 26 cases with dysfunctional, failed, or explanted cochlear implants, 14 (53.8%) explantations were related to infection. Eight dysfunctional or failed cochlear implants (30.8%) were of unknown etiology, 2 (7.7%) were due to trauma, 1 (3.8%) was related to open exposure, and 1 (3.8%) was due to fibrotic resorption of the entire cochlea in a patient with a jugular foramen paraganglioma. These cases of cochlear implants that were found to be dysfunctional or that experienced failure occurred after STP and cochlear implantation were performed.

    When STP and cochlear implantations performed in pediatric vs adult populations were compared, there were no significant differences in complication rates, proportion of single-stage vs multistage procedures, sex of patients, or number of cases with cholesteatoma. When the use of abdominal fat or temporalis graft as obliteration material was compared, STP performed in adults had a significantly higher proportion of cases using abdominal fat vs those performed in children (171 of 182 [94.0%] vs 10 of 22 [45.5%]) (eTable 1 in the Supplement).

    When single-stage vs multistage procedures and the use of temporalis vs fat as obliteration material were compared, there were no significant differences in complication rates (eTables 2 and 3 in the Supplement). Multistage operations were significantly more often performed for cases with cholesteatoma than were single-stage operations (23 of 54 [42.6%] vs 35 of 174 [20.1%]).

    Discussion

    Our results indicate that STP provides a safe environment for cochlear implantation in patients with challenging ears. Use of STP has allowed cochlear implantation to be performed in patients with chronic ear conditions, such as otitis media with cholesteatoma; these have previously been viewed as relative contraindications to cochlear implantation.43 In fact, our findings reveal that 55.4% of patients had a history of otitis media and 35.5% had a preexisting mastoid bowl after canal wall–down (CWD) mastoidectomy for presumed infectious ear disease. These findings have shown a variety of indications for STP beyond infectious processes. Patients with unfavorable anatomy, most commonly resulting from sclerotic mastoids and inner ear malformations, can receive cochlear implantation after the excellent visual exposure that STP provides.

    Our study demonstrates no significant differences in rates of complications, reoperation, or device failures between pediatric and adult populations. Because STP and cochlear implantation can be safely performed in pediatric populations, STP for cochlear implantation can be more frequently considered for children with ear disease resulting in complete sensorineural hearing loss, because earlier cochlear implantation has demonstrated improved speech and language development.44 In addition, STP can eliminate middle ear disease at an earlier interval as well as the necessity of continuous microscopic reevaluation or additional procedures such as tympanostomy tube placement, tympanoplasty, or mastoidectomy.21,45 In addition to congenital anatomical abnormalities, rarer ear disease such as acute eosinophilic otitis media, other autoinflammatory conditions (tumefactive inflammatory pseudotumor), and tumors (papillary adenoma) have been effectively managed by STP. Patients with these less frequently encountered ear diseases can be considered candidates for STP and cochlear implantation if they have significant hearing loss.

    In the setting of cochlear implantation, STP is advantageous over alternatives such as a CWD mastoidectomy. First, a mastoid bowl after CWD mastoidectomy might require lifelong cleaning and subject the patient to continuous ear drainage, restrictions on activities of leisure (eg, swimming), and episodes of vertigo from caloric effects after water exposure or pressure changes.46 Furthermore, open mastoid cavities have higher rates of electrode array extrusion. Alternatively, STP eliminates the need for routine open cavity monitoring as well as reduces the risks of infection and electrode array extrusion. In addition, without any residual hearing necessitating hearing restoration via cochlear implantation, the maintenance of a mastoid bowl becomes obsolete. However, STP is not without its risks; complications resulting from STP include infection of the obliteration graft, breakdown of the EAC blind sac closure, wound at the site of graft retrieval (eg, abdominal wound hematoma), and entrapped cholesteatoma. Our study revealed a global complication rate of 12.4%, which is lower than rates reported after CWD mastoidectomy with cochlear implantation (30% in a systematic review by Hunter et al47). Meticulous surgical overclosure of both the EAC and eustachian tube can reduce this.5,21 Specifically, reinforcement of the EAC overclosure by using a vascularized tissue flap might greatly reduce EAC overclosure breakdown. The comparable complication rate demonstrates STP to be an effective surgery with little morbidity for patients undergoing cochlear implantation.

    Subtotal petrosectomy allows for a wide operative exposure conducive to meticulous removal of cholesteatoma. This is demonstrated by this study’s pooled cholesteatoma recidivism rate of 9.3%, which is comparatively less than that reported in the literature (15% after intact canal wall and 16% after CWD procedures).48 Second-look operations to detect cholesteatoma might serve as an important safeguard to prevent residual or recurrent cholesteatoma from eroding temporal bone and potentially causing device failure.30 In fact, our study revealed that 42.6% of cases with cholesteatoma underwent multistage operations while only 20.1% of cases underwent single-stage operations. This demonstrates appropriate surgical planning based on ear pathology, because during the second stage when cochlear implantation is usually performed, surgeons can simultaneously examine the middle ear and mastoid cavity for residual cholesteatoma.41 In addition, the inability to examine the middle ear after STP necessitates radiological monitoring for cholesteatoma recidivism. Although newer cochlear implant devices have had better magnetic resonance imaging compatibility, shadowing artifact still makes visualization of cholesteatoma recidivism poor.49 Thus, clinicians might find high-resolution computed tomography to be the most effective imaging modality at present in visualizing cholesteatoma recidivism in patients following cochlear implantation.3 Overall, these results indicate that (1) middle ear disease with cholesteatoma can be safely managed by STP with cochlear implantation and (2) a multistage procedure is preferred in extensive cases with cholesteatoma to provide a second-look opportunity for recurrence simultaneously with cochlear implantation.

    The choice of obliteration material often depends on surgeon preference and patient-specific factors. In this study, most included cases used abdominal fat, followed by a vascularized regional flap and bone pate. Abdominal fat is easily accessible, has a low metabolic rate, and can provide improved radiological visual contrast of cholesteatoma reformation on high-resolution computed tomography.3,47 On the other hand, some studies have shown that a vascularized regional flap might be preferred in cases of infection because of its rich vascularization.50 Our study demonstrated that temporalis musculofascial flap was used more frequently in pediatric populations than adult populations. Perhaps this is owing to surgeon preference or to the nature of ear abnormalities between pediatric and adult populations in this series, because STP might be indicated for cholesteatoma more frequently in adults than children.

    Limitations

    This study has numerous limitations. First, we elected to include low-level evidence such as case series and case reports to capture a wide variety of indications for STP and cochlear implantation. Second, based on available and extractable data, we were not able to comment on surgical wound closure technique,51 rates of active vs stable ear disease, or surgeon experience. Third, we were unable to perform any direct comparison between STP and other surgical procedures in preparing the ear for cochlear implantation. These analyses might have provided useful insight into technical variations of STP and might be a subject for future prospective studies.

    Conclusions

    Subtotal petrosectomy has been shown to be effective in creating a sterile and closed-off environment of the middle ear and can allow for excellent visualization during cochlear implantation. In addition, STP can allow for cochlear implantation in ears with conditions previously believed to be contraindications, such as chronic ear infection. Presence of active inflammation or cholesteatoma might indicate that a multistage procedure should be performed. Last, STP can be considered in children requiring cochlear implantation to minimize ear-related issues and allow early benefit from cochlear implantation.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: August 5, 2020.

    Corresponding Author: Flora Yan, BA, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Rutledge Ave, MSC Room 550, Charleston, SC 29425 (yanf@musc.edu).

    Published Online: October 15, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2020.3380

    Author Contributions: Ms Yan and Dr Nguyen had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Yan, Meyer.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Yan, Reddy.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Isaac, Nguyen, McRackan, Meyer.

    Statistical analysis: Yan, Nguyen.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Reddy.

    Supervision: Isaac, McRackan, Meyer.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr McRackan reported receiving personal fees from Envoy Medical as well as funding from the American Cochlear Implant Alliance and National Institutes of Health. No other disclosures were reported.

    References
    1.
    Fisch  U, Mattox  DE.  Microsurgery of the Skull Base. Thieme; 1988.
    2.
    Katzenell  U, Halperin  D.  Subtotal petrosectomy with blind sac closure of the external auditory canal—indications and results.   J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130(suppl S3):S83-S84. doi:10.1017/S002221511600342X Google Scholar
    3.
    Prasad  SC, Roustan  V, Piras  G, Caruso  A, Lauda  L, Sanna  M.  Subtotal petrosectomy: surgical technique, indications, outcomes, and comprehensive review of literature.   Laryngoscope. 2017;127(12):2833-2842. doi:10.1002/lary.26533 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    4.
    Sudhoff  H, Linthicum  FH  Jr.  Temporal bone fracture and latent meningitis: temporal bone histopathology study of the month.   Otol Neurotol. 2003;24(3):521-522. doi:10.1097/00129492-200305000-00029 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    5.
    Kurkure  R, Rayamajhi  P, Castellino  A,  et al.  Subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant surgery: our experience.   Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;72(3):320-325. doi:10.1007/s12070-020-01819-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    6.
    Rabinowitz  PM.  Noise-induced hearing loss.   Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(9):2749-2756, 2759-2760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    7.
    Gorlin  RJ, Gorlin  RJ, Toriello  HV, Cohen  MM.  Hereditary Hearing Loss and Its Syndromes. Oxford University Press; 1995.
    8.
    Gray  RF, Irving  RM.  Cochlear implants in chronic suppurative otitis media.   Am J Otol. 1995;16(5):682-686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    9.
    Axon  PR, Mawman  DJ, Upile  T, Ramsden  RT.  Cochlear implantation in the presence of chronic suppurative otitis media.   J Laryngol Otol. 1997;111(3):228-232. doi:10.1017/S0022215100136977 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    10.
    Bendet  E, Cerenko  D, Linder  TE, Fisch  U.  Cochlear implantation after subtotal petrosectomies.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1998;255(4):169-174. doi:10.1007/s004050050037 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    11.
    Issing  PR, Schönermark  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 Surg. 1998;8(3):127-131. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1058571 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    12.
    Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. OCEBM levels of evidence. Published May 1, 2016. Accessed September 11, 2020. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
    13.
    Sterne  JA, Hernán  MA, McAleenan  A, Reeves  BC, Higgins  JP. Assessing risk of bias in a non-randomized study. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0. 2019:621-641. Accessed September 11, 2020. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-25
    14.
    Sterne  JA, Hernán  MA, Reeves  BC,  et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.   BMJ. 2016;355:i4919-i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    15.
    Freeman  MF, Tukey  JW.  Transformations related to the angular and the square root.   Ann Math Stat. 1950;21(4):607-611. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729756 Google Scholar
    16.
    DerSimonian  R, Laird  N.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.   Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    17.
    Egger  M, Davey Smith  G, Schneider  M, Minder  C.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.   BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    18.
    Sterne  JA, Egger  M.  Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(10):1046-1055. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    19.
    Sterne  JAC, Sutton  AJ, Ioannidis  JPA,  et al.  Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.   BMJ. 2011;343:d4002. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Altuna  X, García  L, Martínez  Z, de Pinedo  MF.  The role of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant recipients.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(12):4149-4153. doi:10.1007/s00405-017-4762-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
    21.
    Barañano  CF, Kopelovich  JC, Dunn  CC, Gantz  BJ, Hansen  MR.  Subtotal petrosectomy and mastoid obliteration in adult and pediatric cochlear implant recipients.   Otol Neurotol. 2013;34(9):1656-1659. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182a006b6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    22.
    Basavaraj  S, Shanks  M, Sivaji  N, Allen  AA.  Cochlear implantation and management of chronic suppurative otitis media: single stage procedure?   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;262(10):852-855. doi:10.1007/s00405-004-0907-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    23.
    Bernardeschi  D, Nguyen  Y, Smail  M,  et al.  Middle ear and mastoid obliteration for cochlear implant in adults: indications and anatomical results.   Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(4):604-609. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000702 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    24.
    Casserly  P, Friedland  PL, Atlas  MD.  The role of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implantation.   J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130(suppl 4):S35-S40. doi:10.1017/S0022215116000979 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    25.
    Elmas  F, Shrestha  BL, Linder  TE.  Subtotal petrosectomy and cochlear implant placement in otologic presentation of “Wegener’s granulomatosis”.   Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2017;15(57):94-98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    26.
    Gray  RF, Ray  J, McFerran  DJ.  Further experience with fat graft obliteration of mastoid cavities for cochlear implants.   J Laryngol Otol. 1999;113(10):881-884. doi:10.1017/S0022215100145499 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    27.
    Hamzavi  J, Baumgartner  W, Franz  P, Plenk  H.  Radical cavities and cochlear implantation.   Acta Otolaryngol. 2001;121(5):607-609. doi:10.1080/000164801316878908 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    28.
    Husseini  ST, Guida  M, Negri  M, Falcioni  M.  Bilateral cochlear implantation in a patient with petrous bone cholesteatoma in the only hearing ear: case report.   J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125(12):1272-1274. doi:10.1017/S0022215111002362 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    29.
    Ketelslagers  K, Somers  T, De Foer  B, Zarowski  A, Offeciers  E.  Results, hearing rehabilitation, and follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging after tympanomastoid exenteration, obliteration, and external canal overclosure for severe chronic otitis media.   Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116(9):705-711. doi:10.1177/000348940711600914 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    30.
    Kojima  H, Sakurai  Y, Rikitake  M, Tanaka  Y, Kawano  A, Moriyama  H.  Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic otitis media.   Auris Nasus Larynx. 2010;37(4):415-421. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2010.01.009 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    31.
    Leung  R, Briggs  RJS.  Indications for and outcomes of mastoid obliteration in cochlear implantation.   Otol Neurotol. 2007;28(3):330-334. doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000265187.45216.71 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    32.
    Pasanisi  E, Vincenti  V, Bacciu  A,  et al.  Multichannel cochlear implantation in radical mastoidectomy cavities.   Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;127(5):432-436. doi:10.1067/mhn.2002.129822 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    33.
    Polo  R, Del Mar Medina  M, Arístegui  M,  et al.  Subtotal petrosectomy for cochlear implantation: lessons learned after 110 cases.   Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016;125(6):485-494. doi:10.1177/0003489415620427 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    34.
    Postelmans  JTF, Stokroos  RJ, Linmans  JJ, Kremer  B.  Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic otitis media: 7 years’ experience in Maastricht.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(8):1159-1165. doi:10.1007/s00405-008-0842-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    35.
    Selivanova  O, Gouveris  H, Mann  W.  Cochlear implantation after surgery for bilateral jugular foramen paragangliomas: a case report.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(3):463-464. doi:10.1007/s00405-008-0680-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    36.
    Sugimoto  H, Hatano  M, Noda  M, Hasegawa  H, Yoshizaki  T.  Cochlear implantation in deaf patients with eosinophilic otitis media using subtotal petrosectomy and mastoid obliteration.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(2):1173-1177. doi:10.1007/s00405-016-4091-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    37.
    Szymański  M, Ataide  A, Linder  T.  The use of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant candidates with chronic otitis media.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(2):363-370. doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3573-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    38.
    Tawfik  KO, Golub  JS, Roland  JT, Samy  RN.  Recurrent cochlear implant infection treated with exteriorization and partial mastoid obliteration.   Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(1):58-61. doi:10.1179/1754762815Y.0000000010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    39.
    Vashishth  A, Fulcheri  A, Prasad  SC,  et al.  Cochlear implantation in cochlear ossification: retrospective review of etiologies, surgical considerations, and auditory outcomes.   Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(1):17-28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    40.
    Vincenti  V, Di Lella  F, Falcioni  M, Negri  M, Zanetti  D.  Cochlear implantation in children with CHARGE syndrome: a report of eight cases.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(8):1987-1993. doi:10.1007/s00405-018-5053-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
    41.
    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(8):2127-2130. doi:10.1007/s00405-013-2698-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    42.
    Yoon  YH, Lee  JB, Chung  JH, Park  KW, Kim  BJ, Choi  JW.  Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media: surgical outcomes and a management algorithm.   Audiol Neurootol. 2020;25(3):151-157. doi:10.1159/000505509 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    43.
    Belal  A  Jr.  Contraindications to cochlear implantation.   Am J Otol. 1986;7(3):172-175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    44.
    Nikolopoulos  TP, O’Donoghue  GM, Archbold  S.  Age at implantation: its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation.   Laryngoscope. 1999;109(4):595-599. doi:10.1097/00005537-199904000-00014 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    45.
    Briggs  RJ, Luxford  WM.  Chronic ear surgery: a historical review.   Am J Otol. 1994;15(4):558-567.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    46.
    Roberson  JB  Jr, Mason  TP, Stidham  KR.  Mastoid obliteration: autogenous cranial bone pate reconstruction.   Otol Neurotol. 2003;24(2):132-140. doi:10.1097/00129492-200303000-00002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    47.
    Hunter  JB, O’Connell  BP, Wanna  GB.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical complications following cochlear implantation in canal wall down mastoid cavities.   Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(4):555-563. doi:10.1177/0194599816651239 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    48.
    Neudert  M, Lailach  S, Lasurashvili  N, Kemper  M, Beleites  T, Zahnert  T.  Cholesteatoma recidivism: comparison of three different surgical techniques.   Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(10):1801-1808. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000484 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    49.
    Cass  ND, Honce  JM, O’Dell  AL, Gubbels  SP.  First MRI with new cochlear implant with rotatable internal magnet system and proposal for standardization of reporting magnet-related artifact size.   Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(7):883-891. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002269 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    50.
    Yung  M.  The use of temporoparietal fascial flap to eliminate wound breakdown in subtotal petrosectomy for chronic discharging ears.   Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(3):248-251. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000959 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    51.
    Lyutenski  S, Schwab  B, Lenarz  T, Salcher  R, Majdani  O.  Impact of the surgical wound closure technique on the revision surgery rate after subtotal petrosectomy.   Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(11):3641-3646. doi:10.1007/s00405-016-4005-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    ×