Objectives/Hypothesis Assumed advantages of a minimally invasive endoscopic transmeatal approach in ear surgery are less postoperative pain, faster healing, and preservation of functional anatomy. We evaluated pain after ear surgery and compared endoscopic transmeatal, microscopic endaural, and retroauricular approaches. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Methods A prospective evaluation of pain during 3 weeks after ear surgery was performed. Three groups were defined: endoscopic transmeatal, microscopic endaural, and retroauricular. Data from 20 fully completed questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form) per group were analyzed with Bayesian and frequentist statistics. Results For all approaches, low pain scores were found, not exceeding 4 on a scale of 0 to 10. Analysis of the worst, least, and average pain scores documented per 24 hours showed no statistically significant difference nor equality between groups. With Bayesian statistics, a Bayes factor of 1.07, 0.25, and 0.51 was found, respectively. With frequentist statistics a p value of .092, .783, and 0.291 was found, respectively. Small, but statistically significant, differences were found for sleep, natural sleeping position, normal work, and pain medication taken. The location of pain correlates with the incision site. Conclusions The results of this study show that the surgical approach has no clinically relevant influence on postoperative pain after ear surgery. The statistically significant differences on natural sleeping position, sleep, normal work, and amount of pain medication taken are small and should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, these should not be decisive factors in the choice of surgical approach in ear surgery. Level of Evidence 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1127–1131, 2021

Introduction and Aim: There is no consensus in literature on the most optimal follow-up imaging protocol for non-echoplanar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (non-EP DW MRI) after the canal wall-up bony obliteration tympanoplasty. Clearly, no residual cholesteatoma should be missed but on the other hand, unnecessary MR controls should be avoided. The aim of this study is to evaluate the postoperative results of non-EP DW MRI after canal wall-up bony obliteration tympanoplasty surgery at our Institute and to propose an optimal postoperative MR imaging scheme based on our data. Material and Methods: Retrospective cohort study; all 271 patients who underwent the bony obliteration tympanoplasty between January 2010 and January 2016 with follow-up at our Institute were included. A postoperative MR imaging was systematically performed at 1 year after surgery and repeated at either 5 or both 3 and 5 years after surgery, based on the preferences of the surgeon. Variables of interest were retrieved from electronic patient records. Results: The median follow-up time was 60 months (inter-quartile range 56–62 mo). Two hundred seventy-one patients (100%) received a 1-year MRI, 107 (39%) a 3-year MRI, and 216 (79.7%%) a 5-year MRI. Residual cholesteatoma was found in nine cases (3.3%), corresponding with an estimated residual rate at 5 years follow-up of 3.7% when using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Of these nine cases, six cases of residual cholesteatoma (66.7%) were detected at the 1-year MRI (12–14 mo postsurgery), two cases (22.2%) at the 3-year MRI (35–39 mo postsurgery), and one case (11.1%) at the 5-year MRI (51 mo postsurgery, in this patient no 3-year MRI was performed). An uncertain MRI result was found in 15 cases, presenting as relatively hyperintense lesions. However, subsequent follow-up scans did not show persistent evidence for residual disease in 14 of these 15 cases. Conclusions: A postoperative MRI scan after 1 and 5 years is essential to detect early and late residual cholesteatoma. In our cohort, 22.2% of residual cases were detected at the 3-year MRI. However, this percentage could potentially have been higher when all patients would have received a 3-year MRI. Therefore, in order to detect residual disease as soon as possible, we propose to perform an MRI scan at 1, 3, and 5 years after the bony obliteration tympanoplasty. In cases with an unclear MR result, we suggest a repeat MRI after 12 months.

Objective This study aimed to compare the necessary scutum defect for transmeatal visualisation of middle-ear landmarks between an endoscopic and microscopic approach. Method Human cadaveric heads were used. In group 1, middle-ear landmarks were visualised by endoscope (group 1 endoscopic approach) and subsequently by microscope (group 1 microscopic approach following endoscopy). In group 2, landmarks were visualised solely microscopically (group 2 microscopic approach). The amount of resected bone was evaluated via computed tomography scans. Results In the group 1 endoscopic approach, a median of 6.84 mm3 bone was resected. No statistically significant difference (Mann–Whitney U test, p = 0.163, U = 49.000) was found between the group 1 microscopic approach following endoscopy (median 17.84 mm3) and the group 2 microscopic approach (median 20.08 mm3), so these were combined. The difference between the group 1 endoscopic approach and the group 1 microscopic approach following endoscopy plus group 2 microscopic approach (median 18.16 mm3) was statistically significant (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001, U = 18.000). Conclusion This study showed that endoscopic transmeatal visualisation of middle-ear landmarks preserves more of the bony scutum than a microscopic transmeatal approach.

Purpose To quantify changes in the perceived epithelial border with narrow band imaging (NBI) and white light imaging (WLI) during cholesteatoma surgery and to objectify possible benefits of NBI in otology. Methods Perioperative digital endoscopic images were captured during combined approach tympanoplasty at our tertiary referral center using WLI and NBI (415 nm and 540 nm wavelengths). Sixteen otologic surgeon defined the epithelial borders within 16 identical WLI and NBI photos. Pixels of these selections were calculated to analyze the quantitative difference between WLI and NBI. A questionnaire also analyzed the qualitative differences. Results Sixteen otologic surgeons participated in the study. Stratified per photo, only two photos yielded a significant difference: less pixels were selected with NBI than WLI. A Bland–Altman plot showed no systemic error. Stratified per otologist, four participants selected significantly more pixels with WLI than with NBI. Overall, no significant difference between selected pixels was found. Sub-analyses of surgeons with more than 5 years of experience yielded no additional findings. Despite these results, 60% believed NBI could be advantageous in defining epithelial borders, of which 83% believed NBI could reduce the risk of residual disease. Conclusion There was no objective difference in the identification of epithelial borders with NBI compared to WLI in cholesteatoma surgery. Therefore, we do not expect the use of NBI to evidently decrease the risk of residual cholesteatoma. However, subjective assessment does suggest a possible benefit of lighting techniques in otology. Level of evidence 3.