Influence of surgical technique on residual cholesteatoma location and prevalence.

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.