• Users Online: 185
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

Table of Contents
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 65-68

New experience in cochlear implantation at Benghazi Medical Center

1 Consultant ENT Surgeon, Benghazi Medical Center, and ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Benghazi, Benghazi, Libya
2 Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Benghazi, Benghazi, Libya

Date of Submission01-Apr-2018
Date of Acceptance02-Jul-2018
Date of Web Publication28-Aug-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Agila Al-Barasi
Consultant ENT Surgeon at Benghazi Medical Center, Benghazi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/LIUJ.LIUJ_15_18

Rights and Permissions

Aims: Deafness is a pathology that interferes in several aspects of the emotional, psychological, social, and intellectual life. Cochlear implants are electronic devices that allow hearing rehabilitation. This study is carried out to show our experience in cochlear implantation at Benghazi Medical Center, Libya. Patients and Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was performed over 110 patients at the Otorhinolaryngology Department, Benghazi Medical Center, between August 2012 and April 2016. The patients were analyzed according to the age, sex, type of implant inserted, approach, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Two types of implant devices were used: cochlear and MED-EL. Surgery was done by the same surgical team. Results: Seventy of all patients operated for cochlear implantation were male (63.6%), while forty were female (36.4%). One hundred and four (94.5%) were children and 6 (5.55%) were adults. One hundred (91%) cases were prelingually deaf and 10 (9%) were postlingual deafness. Telemetry showed satisfactory neural response in 107 (97.35) cases. Failure to insert the electrode in 1 (0.9%) case as the cochlea was ossified bilaterally. Extrusion of the receiver took place in 1 (0.9%) case. One (0.9%) patient had extrusion after 2 years; another 1 (0.9%) had wound dehiscence. Despite our few years of experience in cochlear implantation, we have achieved the requirement of our patients. The need for structured services and trained professionals in this type of procedure is clear.

Keywords: Cochlear implantation, hearing deficiency, hearing rehabilitation

How to cite this article:
Al-Barasi A, S. Abdulkarim YH. New experience in cochlear implantation at Benghazi Medical Center. Libyan Int Med Univ J 2018;3:65-8

How to cite this URL:
Al-Barasi A, S. Abdulkarim YH. New experience in cochlear implantation at Benghazi Medical Center. Libyan Int Med Univ J [serial online] 2018 [cited 2022 Dec 7];3:65-8. Available from: https://journal.limu.edu.ly/text.asp?2018/3/2/65/240037

  Introduction Top

Hearing deficiency is a pathology that interferes in several aspects with the emotional, psychological, social, and intellectual life and is one of the most frequent chronic disabilities.[1] The interest on hearing impairment should expand beyond the epidemiological data to take into account the broad psychophysical and social factors that are likely to be impacted by hearing loss and which might lead to a significant decrease in quality of life.[2],[3] Hence, cochlear implants (CIs) are electronic devices that allow hearing rehabilitation of individuals with severe to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss that would not benefit with the use of hearing aids. CIs stimulate electrically the fibers of the hearing nerve, substituting in partial for the function of the cochlea. A CI device supplies electrical stimulation directly to the auditory nerve, circumventing the damaged hair cells in the cochlea, providing a perceived sensation of hearing.[4],[5],[6],[7] Thus, a CI does not restore normal hearing but provides a sensory neuronal stimulation for sound vibration, resulting in sound perception and subsequent motor neuronal reaction.[8],[9] Extensive auditory, speech, educational, and psychological testing are performed before and after implantation.[10] Different types of implants are used with good results and this is attributed to the technology of the appliance that is improving regularly, as well as with the growing experience of the surgeons. This type of surgery is relatively new in Libya. The present study aims to present our experience at the Otorhinolaryngology Department, Benghazi Medical Centre, Libya.

  Patients and Methods Top

This is a retrospective descriptive study performed at the Otorhinolaryngology Department, Benghazi Medical Center, between August 2012 and April 2016. One hundred and ten patients were included in this study. The workup protocol in our center starts with investigating patients with severe to profound hearing loss by doing audiological assessment and then imaging studies in addition to psychological study. Other laboratory investigations and counseling were performed before proceeding to surgery. The same surgical team using the same operating theater performed all surgeries. The surgical techniques were the same for adult and pediatric cases. Two surgical approaches were used. Cochleostomy approach was used for eighty cases and round window approach for thirty cases. For both approaches, mastoidectomy was performedfirst, then drilling of the receiver-stimulator bed, followed by posterior tympanotomy, and finally insertion of electrodes.[11] Intraoperative facial nerve monitoring was used during surgery in all cases. Two types of implant devices were used: Cochlear Nucleus 6 system (AUSTRALIA) in 100 patients and SONATA CI from MED-EL (AUSTRIA) in ten patients. Postoperatively, telemetry was done for all patients to verify the positioning of the electrodes without fluoroscopic confirmation. The patients' demographics included age, sex, type of implant inserted, approach, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Prelingual congenital deafness with normal psychiatric and neurologic and postlingual cases were included for this study. Cases of mental retardation of autism were excluded from this study.

  Results Top

Results are summarized in [Table 1], where 63.64% of all patients were in the age group of 1–6 years and 27.27% were 7–12 years old. Nearly 63.64% of the patients were males. Regarding surgical approach, 72.73% of the cases had cochleostomy approach and 27.27% were operated through round window approach. About 90.91% of the patients received nucleus type of implants (cochlear) and the other 9.09% were implanted with Sonata (ME-DEL) type.
Table 1: Patients' classifications according to the different variables

Click here to view

Nearly 72.73% of the patients were prelingually deaf and only 27.27% had postlingual deafness. Telemetry showed satisfactory results in 107 patients. For the other three patients, telemetry showed higher impedance also, as they were postmeningitis children. In one case, the failure of insertion of the electrode was due to ossified cochlea. Another case presented after 6 months with extrusion of the receiver due to infection, and the implant was removed and reimplanted. The third patient came with dehiscence of the wound and a rotational flap was performed. There was no preoperative complication, except for two cases who had gusher. These two patients had postoperative vertigo and were discharged from the hospital after 3 days.

  Discussion Top

Cochlear implantation surgery is relatively recent in our center. Cochlear implantation according to the international standards should be done at earlier age to have good results. Recent research demonstrates positive outcomes in children implanted under 12 months of age.[12] Developing research on earlier implantation has led to a change in the current FDA criteria, allowing infants to reach their speech and hearing potential faster. Cochlear implantation has been considered as a safe and reliable operation. In our case, more cochleostomy approach was performed which was reported to be less traumatic.[13] The complications are comparable to international figures. One of our cases (0.91% of all cases) had flap necrosis and extrusion of the implant; this complication is rare but serious. Stamatiou et al.[14] had reported that reimplantation was necessitated by device failure (6 cases; 2.8%) or device extrusion (1 case; 0.5%). Skin flap necrosis was seen with one case in our study; it is considered to be one of major complications that deserve special attention. Although complications are infrequent after CI surgery, they might occur despite careful preoperative planning and meticulous surgical technique.[15]

Three of our candidates were postmeningitis with whom we had difficulty during surgery. Cochlear-implanted children with meningitis-related deafness exhibit higher impedances, and so to optimize the outcome in postmeningitic deaf children, surgery is advisable at an early stage before the onset of cochlear ossification.[16] Therefore, we recommend early cochlear implantation for patients with bilateral profound deafness secondary to meningitis.

  Conclusion Top

Despite our short experience in the field of cochlear implantation, we have encountered very few complications. These results are very encouraging for us to provide children in this country with this kind of advanced technology, even during the difficult time that the country going through. Better results can be obtained if this kind of surgery is performed at an earlier age.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

World Health Organization. WHO Global Estimates on Prevalence of Hearing Loss. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.  Back to cited text no. 1
Li CM, Zhang X, Hoffman HJ, Cotch MF, Themann CL, Wilson MR. Hearing impairment associated with depression in US adults, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2010. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;140:293-302.  Back to cited text no. 2
Amieva H, Ouvrard C, Giulioli C, Meillon C, Rullier L, Dartigues JF. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: A 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2015;63:2099-104.  Back to cited text no. 3
Martins MB, Lima FV, Santos RC Jr., Santos AC, Barreto VM, Jesus EP. Implante coclear: nossa experiência e revisão de literatura. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;16:476-81.  Back to cited text no. 4
Pena Lima LR Jr., Rocha DM, Walsh VP, Antunes AC, Dias Ferreira Calhau CM. Avaliação por imagem nos candidatos ao implante coclear: correlação radiológico-cirúrgica. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2008;74(3).  Back to cited text no. 5
Kral A, Hartmann R, Tillein J, Heid S, Klinke R. Hearing after congenital deafness: Central auditory plasticity and sensory deprivation. Cereb Cortex 2002;12:797-807.  Back to cited text no. 6
Dillon A. Cochlear Implants for Children and Adults with Severe to Profound Deafness. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA166]; 2009. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta166/resources/cochlear-implants-for-children-and-adults-with-severe-to-profound-deafness-pdf-82598378568901. [Last accessed on 2018 Aug 12].  Back to cited text no. 7
Kveton J, Balkany TJ. Status of cochlear implantation in children. American academy of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery subcommittee on cochlear implants. J Pediatr 1991;118:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
Alrashidi E, Almuhawas FA, Hagr A, Garadat S. The use of an illuminated retractor in cochlear implantation: A comparative retrospective study. Ann Saudi Med 2017;37:161-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
Durisin M, Büchner A, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Bartling S, Warnecke A, Lenarz T. Cochlear implantation in children with bacterial meningitic deafness: The influence of the degree of ossification and obliteration on impedance and charge of the implant. Cochlear Implants Int 2015;16:147-58.  Back to cited text no. 10
Gawęcki W, Karlik M, Borucki Ł, Szyfter-Harris J, Wróbel M. Skin flap complications after cochlear implantations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:4175-83.  Back to cited text no. 11
McKinney S. Cochlear implantation in children under 12 months of age. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;25:400-4.  Back to cited text no. 12
Jeyakumar A, Peña SF, Brickman TM. Round window insertion of precurved electrodes is traumatic. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:52-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
Stamatiou GA, Kyrodimos E, Sismanis A. Complications of cochlear implantation in adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2011;120:428-32.  Back to cited text no. 14
Lima Sánchez J, Berenguer B, Aránguez G, González Meli B, Marín Molina C, de Tomás Palacios E. Extruded cochlear implant magnet covered with a temporoparietal fascial flap. A case report. Cir Pediatr 2013;26:48-51.  Back to cited text no. 15
Bille J, Ovesen T. Cochlear implant after bacterial meningitis. Pediatr Int 2014;56:400-5.  Back to cited text no. 16


  [Table 1]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
Patients and Methods
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded126    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal