Canal wall down versus canal wall up surgeries in the treatment of middle ear cholesteatoma

The recurrence and revision rates did not differ betweenthe surgical techniques (P > 0.05).Conclusion: Status of the middle ear mucosa and external auditory canal are important factors affecting the outcomes in cholesteatoma.Instead of a CWD surgery, a CWU surgery seems applicable in cases of cholesteatoma when the bone in the external auditory canal isnot eroded by the disease.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯

Amaç & Hipotez:Background/aim: To compare outcomes of canal wall up (CWU) and canal wall down (CWD) techniques in the treatment of middleear cholesteatoma.Materials and methods: Medical records of 76 patients who had a primary surgery due to middle ear cholesteatoma between July 2015and November 2017 were reviewed retrospectively.

📊

Temel Bulgular & Veri:Hearing thresholds, speech discrimination scores (SDS), recurrences, and revisionsurgeries of CWU and CWD surgeries were compared.Results: Of 76 cholesteatoma cases, 40 (52.6%) had a CWU and 36 (47.4%) had a CWD operation.

💡

Sonuç & Katkı:The recurrence and revision rates did not differ betweenthe surgical techniques (P > 0.05).Conclusion: Status of the middle ear mucosa and external auditory canal are important factors affecting the outcomes in cholesteatoma.Instead of a CWD surgery, a CWU surgery seems applicable in cases of cholesteatoma when the bone in the external auditory canal isnot eroded by the disease.

🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması

📍Kapsam:2017 Verileri

⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Background/aim: To compare outcomes of canal wall up (CWU) and canal wall down (CWD) techniques in the treatment of middleear cholesteatoma.Materials and methods: Medical records of 76 patients who had a primary surgery due to middle ear cholesteatoma between July 2015and November 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Hearing thresholds, speech discrimination scores (SDS), recurrences, and revisionsurgeries of CWU and CWD surgeries were compared.Results: Of 76 cholesteatoma cases, 40 (52.6%) had a CWU and 36 (47.4%) had a CWD operation. Postoperatively, the mean airconduction thresholds were significantly better in CWU compared to CWD surgeries (P = 0.016). The presence of the stapes and thetype of reconstruction material used did not have a significant effect on auditory success rates (P = 0.342 and P = 0.905, respectively).Auditory success was affected by the status of the middle ear mucosa as well. The recurrence and revision rates did not differ betweenthe surgical techniques (P > 0.05).Conclusion: Status of the middle ear mucosa and external auditory canal are important factors affecting the outcomes in cholesteatoma.Instead of a CWD surgery, a CWU surgery seems applicable in cases of cholesteatoma when the bone in the external auditory canal isnot eroded by the disease.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BAYAZIT, Y. A., CEBECİ, S., KARAMERT, R., GÜLHAN, N., ZORLU, M. E., DÜZLÜ, M., UĞUR, M. B., İRİZ, A., ERAVCI, F. C., TUTAR, H. (2022). Canal wall down versus canal wall up surgeries in the treatment of middle ear cholesteatoma. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 5, 1426–1432. https://ajindex.com/articles/610162

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Yeni Sekmede Aç ↗

↗Yeni Sekme

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

Semaan MT, Megerian CA. The pathophysiology of cholesteatoma. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 2006; 39(6): 1143-1159. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2006.08.003 2. Chole R. Chronic otitis media, mastoiditis, and petrositis. In: Flint PW, Haughey BH, Lund, VJ, Niparko JK, Robbins KT, Thomas JR, Lesperance MM. Cummings Otolaryngology: Head & Neck Surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Elsevier Mosby; 2015; pp. 2139-2154. 3. Kerckhoffs KG, Kommer MB, van Strien TH, Visscher SJ, Bruijnzeel H et al. The disease recurrence rate after the canal wall up or canal wall down technique in adults. The Laryngoscope 2016; 126(4): 980-987. doi: 10.1002/lary.25591 4. Murphy TP, Wallis DL. Hearing results in pediatric patients after canal-wall-up and canal-wall-down mastoid surgery. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 1998; 119(5): 439- 443. doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(98)70099-3 5. Stankovic MD. Audiologic results of surgery for cholesteatoma: short- and long-term follow-up of influential factors. Otology & Neurotology 2008; 29(7): 933-940. doi: 10.1097/ MAO.0b013e31818201af 6. Kim M, Choi J, Lee J, Park J, Chu H et al. Hearing outcomes according to the types of mastoidectomy: a comparison between canal wall up and canal wall down mastoidectomy. Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology 2010; 3(4): 203. doi: 10.3342/ceo.2010.3.4.203 7. Eliçora S, Erdem D, Dinç A, Damar M, Bişkin S. The effects of surgery type and different ossiculoplasty materials on the hearing results in cholesteatoma surgery. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2017; 274(2): 773-780. doi: 10.1007/ s00405-016-4350-5 8. Jansen CW. Intact canal wall for cholesteatoma. The American Journal of Otology 1985; 6(1): 3-4. 9. De Foer B, Vercruysse JP, Bernaerts A, Deckers F, Pouillon M et al. Detection of postoperative residual cholesteatoma with non-echo–planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Otology & Neurotology 2008; 29(4): 513-517. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31816c7c3b 10. Dhepnorrarat RC, Wood B, Rajan GP. Postoperative nonecho–planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging changes after cholesteatoma surgery: implications for cholesteatoma screening. Otology & Neurotology 2009; 30(1): 54-58. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31818edf4a 11. Glasscock ME, Miller GW. Intact canal wall tympanoplasty in the management of cholesteatoma. The Laryngoscope 1976; 86(11): 1639-1657. doi: 10.1288/00005537-197611000-00005 12. Sheehy JL, Brackmann DE, Graham MD. Cholesteatoma surgery: residual and recur