The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology

Table 1 A comparison between the two studied groups according to scalar location, insertion depth, complications, and operative time

From: Endoscopic-assisted epitympanic approach: a feasible technique for cochlear implantation

Conventional approach					Endoscopic approach
Linear insertiondepth (mm)	Angular insertion depth (°)	Scalar location	Complications	Operative time	Linear insertion depth (m.)	Angular insertion depth (°)	Scalar location	Complications	Operative time
23	540	V		155	30	680	T		195
27	550	V		160	25	450	T	Chorda tympani injury	170
22	340	T		180	22	300	T		180
24	480	T	TM perforation	165	24	540	T		155
18	320	T		140	23	420	T		160
31	720	V		165	20	270	T		135
24	680	V		180	26	450	T	PCW penetration	150
26	540	T		155	28	540	T		120
24	600	V		155	28	720	T		125
27	550	V		180	24	480	T		135
30	600	V		135	30	680	T	TMF perforation	125
30	680	T		120	23	320	T		120
23	400	T		165	24	360	T		150
28	450	T	Facial nerve paresis	160	22	340	T		135
27	550	V		140	17	360	T		115
18	320	T		185	23	480	T		110
21	500	V		135	21	360	T		90
22	460	T		120	20	360	T		125
28	680	V		135	24	380	T		90
31	630	V		165	26	540	T		110

V scala vestibuli, T scala tympani, PCW posterior canal wall, TM tympanic membrane, TMF tympanomeatal flap

Back to article page