1naresh
Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) ) 1nareshArray ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) )Surgical approaches for superior semicircular canal dehiscence repaira
Approaches Advantages Disadvantages Surgery Technique Approach Most Suitable for Middle Cranial Fossa Direct visualization of dehiscence More invasive requiring craniotomy and limited temporal lobe retraction All kinds of SSC repair: canal resurfacing, plugging, capping Transmastoid Less invasive, standard mastoidectomy approach No direct visualization of dehiscence Canal plugging and modified resurfacing (of SSC sidewalls and not directly over dehiscence) Transcanal Outpatient setting Less efficacious in long-term Reinforcement or occlusion of round window
↵a Modified with permission from Mau et al,16 Ward et al,17 and Succar et al.19