Comparison of the Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Using Round Window and Cochleostomy

• Main Authors: Masoud Naderpour, Zohreh Aminzadeh, Yalda Jabbari Moghaddam, Bita Pourshiri, Aida Ariafar, Afarin Akhondi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Mashhad University of Medical Sciences 2020-01-01
• Series: Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
• Subjects: cochlear implantation; cochleostomy; hearing preservation; round window
• Online Access: https://ijorl.mums.ac.ir/article_14294_53f97299776928d9fbfcfea8e1c9ddbb.pdf

Introduction: Cochlear implantation (CI) is now regarded as a standard treatment for children with severe to profound sensor neural hearing loss. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the round window approach (RWA) and standard cochleostomy approach (SCA) in the preservation of residual hearing after CI in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: This double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted on 97 pediatric patients receiving CI with 12-month follow-up. The study population was divided into two groups according to the surgical approaches they received, including RWA and SCA. Consequently, the patients were evaluated based on the Categories of Auditory Performance scale (CAP) and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test 45-60 days and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-surgery. Results: The CAP and SIR mean scores increased in both groups during the 12-month follow-up. This upward trend was significant in both groups (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in any of the follow-up stages regarding the CAP mean score. The mean SIR score (P=1.14±0.40) was significantly higher in the RWA group 3(P=0.001), 6(P=0.008), and 9(P=0.006) months after the surgery. However, there was no significant difference between the RWA and SCA groups, regarding 1-year SIR (P=0.258). Conclusion: The CI with either RWA or SCA could improve hearing and speech performance in pediatric patients. Although mid-term speech intelligibility was better for RWA, there was no significant difference in the 1-year outcome between these two methods.