Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T23:13:06.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A cadaveric temporal bone study of the anatomical landmarks for middle turn cochleostomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2023

H Samuel Open the ORCID record for H Samuel [Opens in a new window] ,
A Lepcha ,
A Philip ,
M John  and
A Augustine
H Samuel*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
A Lepcha
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
A Philip
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
M John
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
A Augustine
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
*
Author for correspondence: Dr H Samuel, ENT-4 Office, Rm 304, Op block, CMC Hospital, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore, Tamilnadu 632004, India E-mail: habiethomas@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to determine anatomical landmarks for accurate and safe middle turn cochleostomy on cadaveric temporal bones.

Methods

In 17 cadaveric wet adult temporal bones, cortical mastoidectomy was performed, followed by extended posterior tympanotomy through which a middle turn opening was created anterior to the stapes footplate. Micro-measurements of various lengths were taken from the cochleostomy to normal middle-ear anatomical landmarks using a digital microscope.

Results

The mean length from the middle turn cochleostomy to the processus cochleariformis was 1.8 ± 0.3 mm and to the tympanic segment of the facial nerve was 2.2 ± 0.3 mm. The mean shortest length from the oval window to the osseous spiral lamina was 2.4 ± 0.3 mm and to the internal carotid artery was 5.0 ± 0.6 mm. The mean shortest length from the round window to the internal carotid artery was 4.3 ± 0.6 mm.

Conclusion

A middle turn cochleostomy can be safely drilled by using the measured lengths in difficult cases.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantScala TympaniLabyrinthitis
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 7 , July 2023 , pp. 769 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Dr H Samuel takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Bredberg, G, Lindström, B, Löppönen, H, Skarzynski, H, Hyodo, M, Sato, H. Electrodes for ossified cochleas. Am J Otol 1997;18:42–3Google ScholarPubMed
Lenarz, T, Lesinski-Schiedat, A, Weber, BP, Issing, PR, Frohne, C, Büchner, A et al. The nucleus double array cochlear implant: a new concept for the obliterated cochlea. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:24–3210.1097/00129492-200101000-00006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuel, H T, Lepcha, A, Philip, A, John, M, Augustine, AM. Dimensions of the posterior tympanotomy andround window visibility through the facial recess: cadaveric temporal bone study using a novel digital microscope. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;74:714–1810.1007/s12070-021-02512-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koo, TK, Li, MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155–6310.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, JD, Marion, MS, Hinojosa, R. Labyrinthitis ossificans: histopathologic consideration for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;104:320–610.1177/019459989110400306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenarz, T, Büchner, A, Tasche, C, Cristofoli, T, Lesinski-Schiedat, A, Wallenberg, EV et al. The results in patients implanted with the nucleus double array cochlear implant: pitch discrimination and auditory performance. Ear Hear 2002;23:90–10110.1097/00003446-200202001-00011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Presutti, L, Nogueira, JF, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Marchioni, D. Beyond the middle ear: endoscopic surgical anatomy and approaches to inner ear and lateral skull base. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2013;46:189–20010.1016/j.otc.2012.12.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaacson, B, Roland, PS, Wright, CG. Anatomy of the middle-turn cochleostomy. The Laryngoscope 2008;118:2200–410.1097/MLG.0b013e318182ee1cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;29:920–810.1097/MAO.0b013e318184f492CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aschendorff, A, Kromeier, J, Klenzner, T, Laszig, R. Quality control after insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in adults. Ear Hear 2007;28:75–910.1097/AUD.0b013e318031542eCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todt, I, Basta, D, Ernst, A. Does the surgical approach in cochlear implantation influence the occurrence of postoperative vertigo? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138:8–1210.1016/j.otohns.2007.09.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leal, M de C, Caldas Neto, S da S. The anatomical orientation of the middle turn of the cochlea: importance during surgical implantation of the ossified cochlea. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:406–810.1097/MAO.0000000000000686CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, W, Lu, Y, Laurell, G, Cousins, V. A morphometric study of the structures bordering the infra-cochlear corridor relevant for endoscopic/microscopic ear surgery. J Otol 2018;13:81–8410.1016/j.joto.2018.08.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, S, Gaurkar, S, Deshmukh, PT, Khatri, M, Kalambe, S, Lakhotia, P et al. Applied anatomy of round window and adjacent structures of tympanum related in cochlear implantation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2019;85:435–4610.1016/j.bjorl.2018.03.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed