Functional and anatomical results of inside out approach for cholesteatoma surgery

Priyanka Chamoli; Chandra Veer Singh; Sheetal Radia; Anand K. Shah

doi:10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20180711

Authors

Priyanka Chamoli Department of Otorhinilaryngology, Bombay Hospital and Institute of Medical Science, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Chandra Veer Singh Department of Otorhinilaryngology, Bombay Hospital and Institute of Medical Science, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Sheetal Radia Department of Otorhinilaryngology, Bombay Hospital and Institute of Medical Science, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Anand K. Shah Department of Otorhinilaryngology, Bombay Hospital and Institute of Medical Science, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20180711

Keywords:

Cholesteatoma from middle ear and mastoid, Cholesteatoma surgery, Inside-out approach surgery for cholesteatoma

Abstract

Background: The objective of the study was to study the efficacy of inside-out approach in completely eradicating the cholesteatoma from middle ear and mastoid, preservation of hearing and quality of life post mastoidectomy with regards to recurrent discharge, wax, granulations.

Methods: Non-randomizedprospective observational study performed at the Department of ENT in Bombay hospital Mumbai. The study involved 40 patients presenting with chronic suppurative otitis media with cholesteatoma. All of them underwent inside out mastoidectomy and were followed up till the end of the study to evaluate the efficacy of inside out mastoidectomy in eradicating the disease from the middle ear cleft, to assess preservation of hearing and to assess cavity problems.

Results: Of the 40 patients, 39 patients had a total clearance of disease by the inside out approach, and in 1 patient, we were doubtful of the clearance. All patients came for regular follow up and none of them had residual disease at the end of the study period. Thus, the overall success rate was 100% in this study. A significant improvement in the mean air conduction (p<0.01) and the mean air bone gap (p<0.01) postoperatively was seen in all in the postoperative 3^rd month PTA. Only one patient had increased conductive hearing loss one and a half years postoperatively after initial improvement. A dry self-cleansing cavity was achieved in 95% of the patients and only 5% required regular cleaning of waxes the cavities.

Conclusions: Inside out mastoidectomy is a better alternative in canal wall down procedures as it not only clears the disease from the middle ear cleft, but also leaves behind a small postoperative cavity, which will preserve the hearing, decrease the cavity problems and increase the quality of life of such patients.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Sonkhya N, Mittal P, Sonkhya D. Intact Canal Wall Tympanomastoid Surgery: 10 years experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;64(4):319–25.

Roth TN, Ziglinas P, Haeusler R, Caversaccio MD. Cholesteatoma surgery in children: long-term results of the inside-out technique. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(5):843-6.

American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Inc. Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;113(3):186–7.

Roland Peter, Mayerhoff William, Otitis media- surgical principles based on pathogenesis. Otolaryngologic Clin N Am. 1999;32(3):525-47.

Glasscock ME, Gulya AJ. Surgery of the ear. 5th Ed. B C Decker Inc. Elsevier Hamilton; 2003: 499-516.

Eugene M. Operative otolaryngology, Head and neck surgery. Vol II. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company; 1997: 1280-1299.

Gupta V, Gupta A, Sivarajan K. Chronic suppurative otitis media: an aerobic microbiological study. Indian J Otol. 1998;4(2):79-82.

David ER, Simon P, Gurpreet A, Charles J, Patricia C, Shula W, et al. Cholesteatoma in the paediatric age group, Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1988;97:23-9.

Eero V. Changes in the clinical presentation of chronic suppurative otitis media from the 1970s to the 1990s. J Laryngol Otol. 1998;112:1034-7.

Manrique R, Sanhueza I, Manrique M. Attic exposure-antrum exclusion as an on demand surgical technique for cholesteatoma. Acta Otorrhinolaryngol. 2013;64(1):22-30.

Sade J. Treatment of retraction pockets and cholesteatoma. J Laryngol Otol. 1982;96(8):685-704.

Paparella M, Kim. Mastoidectomy update. Laryngoscope. 1977;87(12):1977-88.

Kuo CY, Huang BR, Chen HC, Shih CP, Chang WK, Tsai YL, et al. Surgical Results of Retrograde Mastoidectomy with Primary Reconstruction of the Ear Canal and Mstoid Cavity. Bio Med Res Int. 2015;2015:517035.

Abramson M, Peter L, Barry P, Brian M. Results of conservative surgery for middle ear cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope. 1977;87(8):1281-7.

James BS. A ten year statistical follow-up of 1142 consecutive cases of cholesteatoma: The closed vs. the open technique. Laryngoscope. 1982;92(4):390-6.

Kuo CL, Shiao AS, Liao WH, Ho CY, Lien CF. Can Long-Term Hearing Preservation be Expected in Children following Cholesteatoma Surgery? Results from a 14-year-Long Study of Atticotomy-Limited Mastoidectomy with Cartilage Reconstruction. Audiol Neurotol. 2012;17(6):386–94.

Roth TN, Haeusler R. Inside-out technique cholesteatoma surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30(1):59-63.

Shah N, Cholesteatoma surgery; Transcanal approach, Adv. Oto-Rhino-Laryng. 1983;29:216-23

Yung MW. Small cavity mastoidectomy-5 year review. Clin Otolaryngol. 1996;21(1):24-9.

Lailach S, Kemper M, Lasurashvili N, Zahnert T, Neudert M. Health- related quality of life measurement after cholesteatoma surgery: comparison of three different surgical techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(11):3177-85.