Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2024
Outcomes of Soft Versus Bony Canal Wall Reconstruction with Mastoid Obliteration.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vesole Adam Samuel, Doyle Edward J, Sarkovics Katelyn, Gharib Michael, Samy Ravi N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare recidivism rates, audiometric outcomes, and postoperative complication rates between soft-wall canal wall reconstruction (S-CWR) versus bony-wall CWR (B-CWR) with mastoid obliteration (MO) in patients with cholesteatoma.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
SETTING: Tertiary neurotologic referral center.
PATIENTS: Ninety patients aged ≥18 years old who underwent CWR with MO, either S-CWR or B-CWR, for cholesteatoma with one surgeon from January 2011 to January 2022. Patients were followed postoperatively for at least 12 months with or without second-look ossiculoplasty.
INTERVENTIONS: Tympanomastoidectomy with CWR (soft vs. bony material) and mastoid obliteration.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recidivism rates; conversion rate to CWD; pre- versus postoperative pure tone averages, speech reception thresholds, word recognition scores, and air-bone gaps; postoperative complication rates.
RESULTS: Middle ear and mastoid cholesteatoma recidivism rates were not significantly different between B-CWR (17.3%) and S-CWR (18.4%, p = 0.71). There was no significant difference in pre- versus postoperative change in ABG (B-CWR, -2.1 dB; S-CWR, +1.6 dB; p = 0.91) nor in the proportion of postoperative ABGs <20 dB (B-CWR, 41.3%; S-CWR, 30.7%; p = 0.42) between B-CWR and S-CWR. Further, there were no significant differences in complication rates between B-CWR and S-CWR other than increased minor TM perforations/retractions in B-CWR (63% vs. 40%, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of recidivism rates, audiometric outcomes and postoperative complications between B-CWR with MO versus S-CWR with MO revealed no significant difference. Both approaches are as effective in eradicating cholesteatoma while preserving relatively normal EAC anatomy and hearing. Surgeon preference and technical skill level may guide the surgeon's choice in approach.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
SETTING: Tertiary neurotologic referral center.
PATIENTS: Ninety patients aged ≥18 years old who underwent CWR with MO, either S-CWR or B-CWR, for cholesteatoma with one surgeon from January 2011 to January 2022. Patients were followed postoperatively for at least 12 months with or without second-look ossiculoplasty.
INTERVENTIONS: Tympanomastoidectomy with CWR (soft vs. bony material) and mastoid obliteration.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recidivism rates; conversion rate to CWD; pre- versus postoperative pure tone averages, speech reception thresholds, word recognition scores, and air-bone gaps; postoperative complication rates.
RESULTS: Middle ear and mastoid cholesteatoma recidivism rates were not significantly different between B-CWR (17.3%) and S-CWR (18.4%, p = 0.71). There was no significant difference in pre- versus postoperative change in ABG (B-CWR, -2.1 dB; S-CWR, +1.6 dB; p = 0.91) nor in the proportion of postoperative ABGs <20 dB (B-CWR, 41.3%; S-CWR, 30.7%; p = 0.42) between B-CWR and S-CWR. Further, there were no significant differences in complication rates between B-CWR and S-CWR other than increased minor TM perforations/retractions in B-CWR (63% vs. 40%, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of recidivism rates, audiometric outcomes and postoperative complications between B-CWR with MO versus S-CWR with MO revealed no significant difference. Both approaches are as effective in eradicating cholesteatoma while preserving relatively normal EAC anatomy and hearing. Surgeon preference and technical skill level may guide the surgeon's choice in approach.