Comparison of Total Endoscopic Ear Surgery and Microscopic Postauricular Canal-Wall-Down Approach on Primary Acquired Cholesteatoma.

Mehmet Ekrem Zorlu, Berk Yaramış, Mehmet Emrah Ceylan, Abdullah Dalgıç
{"title":"Comparison of Total Endoscopic Ear Surgery and Microscopic Postauricular Canal-Wall-Down Approach on Primary Acquired Cholesteatoma.","authors":"Mehmet Ekrem Zorlu, Berk Yaramış, Mehmet Emrah Ceylan, Abdullah Dalgıç","doi":"10.5152/iao.2024.231405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare total endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) and microscopic postauricular canal-wall-down tympanomastoidectomy (CWD) in cholesteatoma surgery in our clinic. This study included 59 patients, of whom 30 and 29 were operated on with CWD in 2016-2018 and TEES in 2019-2021, respectively and compared regarding intraoperative findings, hearing outcomes, long-term outcomes, and recidivism rates between groups. This study excluded patients in stage IV according to the European Academy of Otology and Neurotology/Japan Otological Society Staging System on Middle Ear Cholesteatoma, aged < 18, with congenital cholesteatoma, who underwent revision surgery. Two patients in the TEES group had recidivism (6.9%), with recurrent disease observed in both patients and residual disease in none, whereas 3 patients in the CWD group had recidivism (10%), including recurrent disease in 2 and residual disease in 1 patient. Tympanic membrane perforation occurred in 2 (6.9%) and 1 (3.3%) patients in the TEES and CWD groups, respectively. The 2 groups revealed no significant difference in terms of recidivism and perforation rates (P=1.000, P = .612). The CWD group had a longer mean operation time (225.54 ± 47.86 minutes) than the TEES group (160.55 ± 24.98 minutes) (P < .001). The 2 groups demonstrated no significant difference regarding pre- and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) and ABG gain (P = .105, P=.329, P=.82, respectively). Total endoscopic ear surgery provides similar results in terms of hearing, recidivism, and long-term outcomes with the microscopic CWD approach. However, the CWD approach is still important, especially in patients in advanced stages.</p>","PeriodicalId":94238,"journal":{"name":"The journal of international advanced otology","volume":"20 4","pages":"325-330"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363199/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of international advanced otology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2024.231405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare total endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) and microscopic postauricular canal-wall-down tympanomastoidectomy (CWD) in cholesteatoma surgery in our clinic. This study included 59 patients, of whom 30 and 29 were operated on with CWD in 2016-2018 and TEES in 2019-2021, respectively and compared regarding intraoperative findings, hearing outcomes, long-term outcomes, and recidivism rates between groups. This study excluded patients in stage IV according to the European Academy of Otology and Neurotology/Japan Otological Society Staging System on Middle Ear Cholesteatoma, aged < 18, with congenital cholesteatoma, who underwent revision surgery. Two patients in the TEES group had recidivism (6.9%), with recurrent disease observed in both patients and residual disease in none, whereas 3 patients in the CWD group had recidivism (10%), including recurrent disease in 2 and residual disease in 1 patient. Tympanic membrane perforation occurred in 2 (6.9%) and 1 (3.3%) patients in the TEES and CWD groups, respectively. The 2 groups revealed no significant difference in terms of recidivism and perforation rates (P=1.000, P = .612). The CWD group had a longer mean operation time (225.54 ± 47.86 minutes) than the TEES group (160.55 ± 24.98 minutes) (P < .001). The 2 groups demonstrated no significant difference regarding pre- and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) and ABG gain (P = .105, P=.329, P=.82, respectively). Total endoscopic ear surgery provides similar results in terms of hearing, recidivism, and long-term outcomes with the microscopic CWD approach. However, the CWD approach is still important, especially in patients in advanced stages.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
原发性后天性胆脂瘤的全内窥镜耳部手术与显微镜下耳后沟-壁下入路的比较
本研究旨在比较本诊所胆脂瘤手术中的全内窥镜耳手术(TEES)和显微镜下耳后管壁下鼓室成形术(CWD)。本研究纳入了59例患者,其中30例和29例分别在2016-2018年和2019-2021年接受了CWD手术和TEES手术,并对两组患者的术中结果、听力结果、远期结果和复发率进行了比较。本研究排除了根据欧洲耳科和神经病学学会/日本耳科学会中耳胆脂瘤分期系统处于IV期、年龄小于18岁、患有先天性胆脂瘤、接受过翻修手术的患者。TEES 组中有两名患者复发(6.9%),其中两名患者病情复发,一名患者病情残留,而 CWD 组中有三名患者复发(10%),其中两名患者病情复发,一名患者病情残留。TEES 组和 CWD 组分别有 2 名(6.9%)和 1 名(3.3%)患者出现鼓膜穿孔。两组在复发率和穿孔率方面无明显差异(P=1.000,P=0.612)。CWD 组的平均手术时间(225.54 ± 47.86 分钟)长于 TEES 组(160.55 ± 24.98 分钟)(P < .001)。两组在术前和术后气骨间隙(ABG)和ABG增量方面无明显差异(分别为P=.105、P=.329、P=.82)。全内窥镜耳部手术在听力、复发率和长期疗效方面与显微CWD方法相似。不过,CWD方法仍然很重要,尤其是对晚期患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dimensions of Osseous External Auditory Canal in Otosclerosis Using High-Resolution Computed Tomography. Longitudinal Evaluation of Hearing Function in Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Inside Attendants. White Matter Changes in Cases with Unilateral Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Indicated by Diffusion Tensor Imaging Based on Tract-Based Spatial Statistics. Quantifying Residual Hearing Loss from Electrode Insertion Trauma in Cochlear Implant Surgery: A Prospective Double-Blind Study. Inflammatory Pseudotumor of the Temporal Bone and Parapharyngeal Space: A Clinical Case.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1