We show the recurrent and residual disease rates after either CWU or CWD tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration to be qualitatively similar to, if not better than, previously reported rates of for nonobliterative techniques. In this study, the lowest recurrent and residual rates were reported when combining the CWU tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration, on average 0.28 and 4.2%, respectively.
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text
Purpose To evaluate the surgical results of revision canal wall down (CWD) surgery for chronically discharging mastoid cavities and to compare the non-obliteration approach to mastoid obliteration with canal wall reconstruction. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study. All adult patients (≥ 18 years) who underwent revision surgery for chronically draining mastoid cavities between January 2013 and January 2020 were included. Primary outcome measures included the dry ear rate, complications and postoperative hearing. Results 79 ears were included; 56 ears received revision CWD with mastoid obliteration and posterior canal wall reconstruction and 23 ears received CWD without mastoid obliteration. The dry ear rate at the most recent outpatient clinic visit (median 28.0 months postoperative) was significantly higher in the obliteration group with 96.4% compared to 73.9% for the non-obliteration group (p = .002). There were no differences in audiological outcome and incidence of complications between the two techniques. Conclusion We show that in our study population revision CWD surgery with mastoid obliteration and posterior canal wall reconstruction is superior to revision CWD surgery without mastoid obliteration in the management of chronically discharging mastoid cavities. In the obliteration group, a dry ear was achieved in 96.4% as this was 73.9% in the non-obliteration group. We found no differences in audiological outcome and in incidence of complications between the two techniques.
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 To evaluate and compare the hearing outcome after the bony obliteration tympanoplasty (BOT), canal wall up (CWU) without mastoid obliteration and canal wall down (CWD) without mastoid obliteration in a large patient cohort. As the aeration of the middle ear is associated with hearing outcome, we hypothesized that the post-operative hearing after the BOT may be better compared to CWU and CWD without obliteration. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study on all adult patients who underwent the BOT, CWU without obliteration or CWD without obliteration for primary or revision cholesteatoma between January 2003 and March 2019 with audiological follow-up at our institution. Pre-operative, short-term post-operative and long-term post-operative hearing tests were analyzed and potential factors influencing post-operative hearing were assessed. Results 626 ears were included. We found no significant differences between the short-term and long-term post-operative audiometry. The pre-operative air–bone gap (ABG) was the factor with the largest effect size on change in air–bone gap (ABG) between pre- and post-operative. When stratifying for this factor along with the type of ossicular chain reconstruction to account for differences at baseline, no significant differences in post-operative ABG were found between BOT and non-obliteration CWU and CWD. Conclusion In this large retrospective cohort study, we found no significant differences in post-operative ABG between the BOT and the non-obliteration CWU and CWD. A solid comparison of hearing between groups remains very challenging as hearing outcome seems to be dependent on many different factors. Hearing outcome seems to be no additional argument to choose for BOT over non-obliteration surgery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.