Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, cilt.14, sa.18, 2025 (SCI-Expanded)
Background/Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate factors necessitating alternative techniques during cochlear implant (CI) surgery and to compare outcomes with standard procedures. Methods: Patients of all ages who underwent CI at our center between January 2003 and January 2024 were included. Alternative methods were defined as removal of external auditory canal/posterior canal wall, removal of ossicles to enhance surgical view, use of an endoscope for round window visualization, or similar approaches. Results: A total of 404 patients (mean age 13 +/- 19.7 years) were analyzed. Preoperative imaging revealed inner ear anomalies in 44 patients (10.9%). Alternative methods were used in 41 patients (10.1%), including incus removal (n = 16), endoscopic assistance (n = 14), posterior canal wall removal (n = 4), incus buttress removal (n = 3), combined ossicle removal (n = 3), and one canal wall down mastoidectomy with fat graft obliteration and blind pouch closure. Alternative methods were significantly more frequent in patients with inner ear anomalies or additional otologic disease (p = 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively), but not across age groups (p = 0.65). Partial electrode insertion occurred in 17 cases. Electrode insertion and complication rates were comparable between groups (p = 0.08 and p = 0.99, respectively). Bony cochleostomy was significantly more common in the alternative methods group (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Inner ear anomalies and additional otologic diseases may necessitate alternative CI techniques. These methods achieve electrode insertion and complication rates comparable to standard approaches, supporting their effectiveness in selected cases.