**Abbreviations**


**135**

**Author details**

Yasser A. Fouad

Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

\*Address all correspondence to: yasserfoadent@gmail.com

provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

*Advances in Surgical and Anesthetic Techniques for Cochlear Implantation*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88380*

*Advances in Surgical and Anesthetic Techniques for Cochlear Implantation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88380*

*Advances in Rehabilitation of Hearing Loss*

ears with residual hearing.

**6. Conclusion**

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

**Abbreviations**

This expansion in CI candidacy criteria was based on the strong evidence of two hypotheses: the first is the ability of CI surgery to preserve the residual hearing, and the second is the beneficial effect and the better speech outcomes of CI surgery in

Systematic review studies were conducted on the effect of CI surgical techniques

on hearing preservations [36, 65, 74]; all of these studies gathered that nontraumatic "soft" CI surgery can preserve hearing. Gantz et al. conducted a multicenter study on the outcome of CI surgery on 87 ears with residual hearing. At initial activation, 90% of the subjects maintained a functional low-frequency pure-tone

Regarding the benefit of CI in ears with residual hearing, a systematic review study was conducted on the outcome of CI in children with residual hearing; this study demonstrated that the better the preoperative residual hearing, the better the

More than half a century passed since the first cochlear implantation surgery; throughout this long period, the main advances happened in cochlear implantation were the manufacture of the implant itself, surgical technique showing a lot of refinement rather than changes, and also the possibility of surgery nowadays to be performed under local anesthesia. The ongoing advances in cochlear implants and refinements of the surgical techniques have improved the outcomes of cochlear implantation

Roland Jr., J.T. had major role in this work; he helped me as a mentor, and also he

and allowed for hearing preservation in case of preoperative residual hearing.

provided me with four figures of his own work (**Figures 1, 2, 5**, and **6**).

MPTA mastoidectomy posterior tympanotomy approach

CS-LA conscious sedation with local anesthesia

ESRT electrical stapedial reflex thresholds ECAP electrical compound action potential

PCI percutaneous cochlear implantation

average; this percentage was reduced to 80% after 12 months [75].

postoperative speech perception outcomes [76].

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

CI cochlear implantation

RW round window

GA general anesthesia RS receiver/stimulator

NRT neural response telemetry

EAC external auditory canal

LW lateral wall MS midscalar PM perimodiolar

**134**
