European annals of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck diseases · 2019
Influence of surgical technique on residual cholesteatoma location and prevalence.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Rayneau P, Aussedat C, Trinh T T, Bobillier C, Lescanne E, Robier A, Bakhos D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Compared to canal wall up (CWU) tympanoplasty, canal wall reconstruction (CWR) allows better visualization of cholesteatoma extension. The canal wall up approach provides good functional outcomes, but with higher rates of residual cholesteatoma. The aim of this study was to compare residual cholesteatoma prevalence and location between the two approaches.
METHOD: Subjects were adult patients with residual cholesteatoma following CWU or CWR surgery between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. During this period, 94 patients underwent CWU and 71 CWR; 22 presented with residual cholesteatoma: 16 after CWU (R-CWU group) and 6 after CWR (R-CWR group).
RESULTS: There was no significant inter-group difference in residual cholesteatoma prevalence: 17% after CWU, 8.4% after CWR. Locations comprised: 13 (81%) in the attic, 9 (56%) in the tympanic cavity and 4 (25%) in the mastoid in the R-CWU group, and 6 (100%) in the attic in the R-CWR group. There were significantly fewer tympanic cavity locations after CWR compared to CWU (P=0.046).
CONCLUSION: Residual cholesteatoma prevalence did not significantly differ between the CWU and CWR approaches. The most frequent location was the attic; significantly more locations were in the tympanic cavity with the CWU approach. These findings are important for surgeons and neuro-radiologists during follow-up.
METHOD: Subjects were adult patients with residual cholesteatoma following CWU or CWR surgery between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. During this period, 94 patients underwent CWU and 71 CWR; 22 presented with residual cholesteatoma: 16 after CWU (R-CWU group) and 6 after CWR (R-CWR group).
RESULTS: There was no significant inter-group difference in residual cholesteatoma prevalence: 17% after CWU, 8.4% after CWR. Locations comprised: 13 (81%) in the attic, 9 (56%) in the tympanic cavity and 4 (25%) in the mastoid in the R-CWU group, and 6 (100%) in the attic in the R-CWR group. There were significantly fewer tympanic cavity locations after CWR compared to CWU (P=0.046).
CONCLUSION: Residual cholesteatoma prevalence did not significantly differ between the CWU and CWR approaches. The most frequent location was the attic; significantly more locations were in the tympanic cavity with the CWU approach. These findings are important for surgeons and neuro-radiologists during follow-up.