Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2019
DOI: 10.1017/s0022215119002408
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Canal wall down mastoidectomy with obliteration versus canal wall up mastoidectomy in primary cholesteatoma surgery

Abstract: ObjectiveThis study sought to compare disease recidivism rates between canal wall up mastoidectomy and a canal wall down with obliteration technique.MethodsPatients undergoing primary cholesteatoma surgery at our institution over a five-year period (2013–2017) using the aforementioned techniques were eligible for inclusion in the study. Rates of discharge and disease recidivism were analysed using chi-square statistics.ResultsA total of 104 ears (98 patients) were included. The mean follow-up period was 30 mon… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
26
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(24 reference statements)
3
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To date, all patients managed with mastoid obliteration (either via CWD or ICW mastoidectomy) have avoided further recurrence. Other reports in the literature have advocated the value of mastoid obliteration for management of recurrent cholesteatoma 14‐18 . Our work supports this approach for patients with refractory disease and failed attempts to preserve the canal wall, while demonstrating composite alloplastic reconstruction as an effective means of repairing EAC defects in cases where the surgeon or patient prefers to maintain the EAC.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To date, all patients managed with mastoid obliteration (either via CWD or ICW mastoidectomy) have avoided further recurrence. Other reports in the literature have advocated the value of mastoid obliteration for management of recurrent cholesteatoma 14‐18 . Our work supports this approach for patients with refractory disease and failed attempts to preserve the canal wall, while demonstrating composite alloplastic reconstruction as an effective means of repairing EAC defects in cases where the surgeon or patient prefers to maintain the EAC.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…The material used in this study (5 g,Mimix) costs $663 at our institution, although an equivalent smaller-volume preparation (2 g, OtoMimix-Olympus America, Southborough, of recurrent cholesteatoma. [14][15][16][17][18] Our work supports this approach for patients with refractory disease and failed attempts to preserve the canal wall, while demonstrating composite alloplastic reconstruction as an effective means of repairing EAC defects in cases where the surgeon or patient prefers to maintain the EAC. Furthermore, the equivalent cholesteatoma recurrence rates between groups suggest that factors besides the nature of EAC repair ultimately contribute to cholesteatoma recurrence.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…Eradication of cholesteatoma, prevention of recurrence, and restoration of hearing are the ideal goals of mastoid surgery. However, the main two surgical procedure canal walls up and down mastoidectomy cannot achieve these goals [3,[16][17][18][19][20][21].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The chronic postoperative temporal bone cavity inflammation (CPTBCI) typically implies a chronically discharging radical mastoid cavity, which results from canal wall down (i.e., radical) mastoidectomy ( Gluth et al, 2013 ). This otological surgical procedure is performed in about 53% of cholesteatoma surgery ( Wilkie et al, 2019 ). Although the CPTBCI affects only 1.5% of patients with the radical mastoid cavity ( Pareschi et al, 2019 ), its burden on quality of life and healthcare is significant ( Khalil and Windle-Taylor, 2003 ; Dornhoffer et al, 2008 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%