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
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SUCCESS OF
CHOLESTEATOMA SURGERY: A POSTOPERATIVE REVIEW
1
University ORL Clinic, Nis, Serbia
2
Medical Faculty, Nis, Serbia
Publication date: 2011-06-30
J Hear Sci 2011;1(2):40-44
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Objective:
To review the audiological results of patients surgically treated for cholesteatoma.
Patients and Methods:
A retrospective study of patients operated for acquired middle ear cholesteatoma during the period 1990–2002 was performed. A total of 758 patients were followed in the short term and 611 patients in the long term. Localization of cholesteatoma was classified as attic, sinus, or tensa. Closed tympanoplasty was performed as the single procedure of choice on all the children, and reoperation or conversion to open tympanoplasty was made later if needed. Adult patients were treated with single classical canal wall up (CWU), or wall down (CWD), according to the propagation of disease and condition of the middle ear. Preoperative and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG), and pure tone average (PTA), were compared.
Results:
Considering all the patients, hearing improvement (reduction of ABG) amounted to 20 dB in the short term and 18 dB over the long term. Preoperative hearing level was significantly worse for the CWD than for the intact canal wall (ICW) technique. The ABG closure was much better in the group with attic cholesteatoma. Revision operations and bilateral cholesteatoma gave worse total postoperative hearing. Damage of auditory ossicles correlated well with total preoperative and postoperative results.
Conclusions:
The audiological results of cholesteatoma surgery are preserved during long-term follow-up. Poorer preoperative hearing level, CWD tympanoplasty, bilateral cholesteatoma, and ossicular damage, as well as revision surgery, were associated with reduced gains in hearing with surgical management.
To review the audiological results of patients surgically treated for cholesteatoma.
Patients and Methods:
A retrospective study of patients operated for acquired middle ear cholesteatoma during the period 1990–2002 was performed. A total of 758 patients were followed in the short term and 611 patients in the long term. Localization of cholesteatoma was classified as attic, sinus, or tensa. Closed tympanoplasty was performed as the single procedure of choice on all the children, and reoperation or conversion to open tympanoplasty was made later if needed. Adult patients were treated with single classical canal wall up (CWU), or wall down (CWD), according to the propagation of disease and condition of the middle ear. Preoperative and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG), and pure tone average (PTA), were compared.
Results:
Considering all the patients, hearing improvement (reduction of ABG) amounted to 20 dB in the short term and 18 dB over the long term. Preoperative hearing level was significantly worse for the CWD than for the intact canal wall (ICW) technique. The ABG closure was much better in the group with attic cholesteatoma. Revision operations and bilateral cholesteatoma gave worse total postoperative hearing. Damage of auditory ossicles correlated well with total preoperative and postoperative results.
Conclusions:
The audiological results of cholesteatoma surgery are preserved during long-term follow-up. Poorer preoperative hearing level, CWD tympanoplasty, bilateral cholesteatoma, and ossicular damage, as well as revision surgery, were associated with reduced gains in hearing with surgical management.
REFERENCES (15)
1.
De Vos C, Gersdorff M, Gérard JM: Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol, 2007; 28: 61–67.
2.
Leonetti JP, Marzo SJ, Beauchamp MM et al: Long-term results with operated sinus tympani retraction cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2006; 135: 152–54.
3.
Tos M, Lau T: Late results of surgery in different cholesteatoma types. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec, 1989; 51: 33–49.
4.
Iurato S, Marioni G, Onofri M: Hearing results of ossiculoplasty in Austin-Kartush group A patients. Otol Neurotol, 2001; 22: 140–44.
5.
Stankovic M: Follow up of cholesteatoma surgery: open versus closed tympanoplasty. ORL, 2007; 69: 299–305.
6.
American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Inc. Committee of Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1995; 113: 186–87.
7.
Ikeda M, Yoshida S, Ikui A et al: Canal wall down tympanoplasty with canal reconstruction for middle-ear cholesteatoma: post-operative hearing, cholesteatoma recurrence, and status of re-aeration of reconstructed middle-ear cavity. J Laryngol Otol, 2003; 117: 249–55.
8.
Jeng FC, Tsai MH, Brown CJ: Relationship of preoperative findings and ossicular discontinuity in chronic otitis media. Otol Neurotol, 2003; 24: 29–32.
9.
Emir H, Ceylan K, Kizilkaya Z et al: Success is a matter of experience. Type 1 tympanoplasty: influencing factors on type 1 tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2007; 264: 595–99.
10.
Kos MI, Castrillon R, Montandon P, Guyot JP: Anatomic and functional long-term results of canal wall-down mastoidectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 2004; 113: 872–76.
11.
Siddiq MA, East DM: Long-term hearing results of incus transposition. Clin Otolaryngol, 2004; 29: 115–18.
12.
Anderson J, Cayé-Thomasen P, Tos M: A comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in tympanoplasty after surgery for sinus or tensa retraction cholesteatoma in children. Otol Neurotol, 2004; 25: 856–63.
13.
Dornhoffer J: Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope, 2003; 113: 1844–56.
14.
Veldman JE, Braunius WW: Revision surgery for chronic otitis media: a learning experience. Report on 389 cases with a long-term follow-up. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1998; 107: 486–91.
15.
Kaylie DM, Gardner EK, Jackson CG: Revision chronic ear surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2006; 134: 443–50.
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.
