Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC MATERIALS TO
IMPROVE HEARING AFTER OBLITERATION OF THE MASTOID
CAVITY
1
ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
2
ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
3
Audiology Unit, ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
Publication date: 2014-12-31
Corresponding author
Marwa M. El-Begermy
Marwa M. El-Begermy, ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, tel.: +201111766566, e-mail: marwabegermy@gmail.com
Marwa M. El-Begermy, ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, tel.: +201111766566, e-mail: marwabegermy@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2014;4(4):36-41
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Indications for removal of mastoid air cells and obliterating the mastoid cavity vary considerably from surgeon to surgeon. Various obliteration techniques have been recommended to eliminate open cavity problems. Here we investigated the difference between natural and synthetic filling materials to improve hearing after obliteration of the mastoid cavity.
Setting:
Academic tertiary care medical centers (Al-Azhar and Ain-Shams University Hospitals).
Study design:
Retrospective comparative study included 60 patients divided into 2 equal groups.
Methods:
The study was conducted over 6 years from 2008–14. The mean follow-up time was 3.5 years.
Results:
We found that serviceable hearing (≤30 dB) was obtained after surgery in 52 patients (86.6%). In cases where natural materials were used in reconstruction, the average gain in AC was 25.5 dB and in BC it was 1.1 dB, while in cases where synthetic materials were used the average gain in AC was 26 dB and in BC it was 0.5 dB. There was significant improvement in the mean postoperative AC compared to the mean preoperative AC. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the use of natural and synthetic materials in improving postoperative hearing.
Conclusions:
Both natural and synthetic materials help in improvement of hearing after obliteration of the mastoid cavity. There is no statistically significant difference between the materials.
Indications for removal of mastoid air cells and obliterating the mastoid cavity vary considerably from surgeon to surgeon. Various obliteration techniques have been recommended to eliminate open cavity problems. Here we investigated the difference between natural and synthetic filling materials to improve hearing after obliteration of the mastoid cavity.
Setting:
Academic tertiary care medical centers (Al-Azhar and Ain-Shams University Hospitals).
Study design:
Retrospective comparative study included 60 patients divided into 2 equal groups.
Methods:
The study was conducted over 6 years from 2008–14. The mean follow-up time was 3.5 years.
Results:
We found that serviceable hearing (≤30 dB) was obtained after surgery in 52 patients (86.6%). In cases where natural materials were used in reconstruction, the average gain in AC was 25.5 dB and in BC it was 1.1 dB, while in cases where synthetic materials were used the average gain in AC was 26 dB and in BC it was 0.5 dB. There was significant improvement in the mean postoperative AC compared to the mean preoperative AC. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the use of natural and synthetic materials in improving postoperative hearing.
Conclusions:
Both natural and synthetic materials help in improvement of hearing after obliteration of the mastoid cavity. There is no statistically significant difference between the materials.
REFERENCES (15)
1.
Lambert P. Mastoidectomy. In: Cumming C et al. (eds). Otolaryngology: Head and NeckSurgery. 4th ed. New York: Mosby Inc., 2005; 3075–87.
2.
Uçar C. External auditory canal reconstruction and mastoid cavity obliteration with composite multifractured osteoperiosteal flap: a preliminary study. Turk J ENT (Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg), 2006; 16(3): 127–31.
3.
Hüttenbrink K. Biomechanical aspects of middle ear reconstruction. In: Jahnke K (ed.), Middle Ear Surgery: Recent advances and future directions. New York: Thieme, 2004; 24–52.
4.
Dornhoffer JL. Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope, 1997; 107(8): 1094–9.
5.
Meyer T, Strunk J, Lambert P. Cholesteatoma. In: Bailey BJ et al. (eds). Head and Neck Surgery: Otolaryngology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006; 2020–100.
6.
Chole R, Brodie H, Jacob A. Surgery of the mastoid and petrosa. In: Bailey BJ et al. (eds). Head and Neck Surgery: Otolaryngology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006; 2094–111.
7.
Uçar C. Canal wall reconstruction and mastoid obliteration with composite multi-fractured osteoperiosteal flap. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2006; 263(12): 1082–6.
8.
Sudhoff H, Hildmann H. Cholesteatoma surgery. In: Hildmann H and Sudhoff H (eds), Middle Ear Surgery. Berlin: SpringerVerlag, 2006; 67–72.
9.
Eavey D, Lubianca F. Canal wall window tympanomastoidectomy. Laryngoscope, 2000; 110(8): 1410–4.
10.
Wilson H, David W. Titanium mesh for functional reconstruction of the mastoid cortex after mastoidectomy. Otol Neurotol, 2006; 27(1) 33–6.
11.
Ezzat AEM, Eid MI. Evaluation of using Bioglass in obliteration of mastoid cavity. Curr Sci Int, 2014; 3(2): 87–94.
12.
Roland P, Leach J. Reconstruction of the posterior ear canal. In: Haberman RS (ed.), Middle Ear and Mastoid Surgery. York, PA: Thieme Medical, 2004; 81-8.
13.
Berrettini S, Ravecca F, de Vito A, Forli F, Valori S, Franceschini SS. Modified Bondy radical mastoidectomy: long-term personal experience, J Laryngol Otol, 2004; 118(5): 333–7.
14.
Della Santina CC, Lee SC. Ceravital reconstruction of canal wall down mastoidectomy: long-term results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2006; 132(6): 617–23.
15.
Visvanathan V, Kubba H, Morrissey C. Cholesteatoma surgery in children: 10-year retrospective review. J Laryngol Otol, 2012; 126(5): 450–3.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
