4.6 Article

Long-Term Anatomical and Hearing Outcomes of Canal Wall down Tympanoplasty for Tympano-Mastoid Cholesteatoma: A 20-Year Retrospective Study

Journal

LIFE-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life12111745

Keywords

tympanomastoid cholesteatoma; canal wall down mastoidectomy; residual disease; recurrence rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the residual rate and functional outcomes after ten years of canal wall down tympanoplasty (CWD) for tympano-mastoid cholesteatoma. The results showed that preserving the stapes superstructure was associated with better hearing outcomes, and CWD surgery allowed for effective long-term anatomical disease control.
Background: to evaluate the residual rate and the functional results after ten years from canal wall down tympanoplasty (CWD) for tympano-mastoid cholesteatoma. Methods: All the patients undergoing CWD for chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma at our ENT University Department between January 2002 and December 2022 were initially assessed. We performed clinical and diagnostic evaluation at baseline, 6 months, and then every year until an average follow-up of 10 years was obtained. Patients were consequently divided into two groups according to the presence (group A) or absence (group B) of the stapes superstructure. Results: After the selection process, 176 ears were included. The presence of the stapes superstructure was associated with better hearing outcomes (rate of patients < 30 dB) at 6 months (91.42% vs. 74.46%; p = 0.001) and 10 years (74.46% vs. 24.11%; p < 0.001). Residual cholesteatoma was reported in 10 ears, which included 2/35 ears in group A (5.71 %) and 8/141 in group B (5.67 %) (p = 0.993). The recurrent cholesteatoma rate was respectively 1/35 (2.85%) vs. 3/141 (2.18%) (p = 0.516). Conclusions: the CWD approach to cholesteatoma allows for effective long-term anatomical disease control and good hearing results when the stapes superstructure is preserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available