与闭门式乳突切除术相比,开放式乳突切除术改善了胆脂瘤性慢性中耳炎患者的听力学预后。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL American journal of translational research Pub Date : 2025-01-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.62347/DPOF4232
Hongya Geng, Lina Han, Yongtao Tian, Gaifang Zhang, Xiuyun Wu, Chunhua Wang, Zhitao Fan, Ranran Liu, Ling He
{"title":"与闭门式乳突切除术相比,开放式乳突切除术改善了胆脂瘤性慢性中耳炎患者的听力学预后。","authors":"Hongya Geng, Lina Han, Yongtao Tian, Gaifang Zhang, Xiuyun Wu, Chunhua Wang, Zhitao Fan, Ranran Liu, Ling He","doi":"10.62347/DPOF4232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of open cavity mastoidectomy (OCM) versus closed cavity mastoidectomy (CCM) in patients with chronic otitis media (COM). This study aimed to compare audiological outcomes of OCM and CCM in cholesteatomatous COM (CCOM) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical data were collected from 102 patients with middle ear cholesteatomas who underwent OCM or CCM for CCOM at our hospital between February 2018 and May 2022. A retrospective analysis was conducted on audiological outcomes for patients with CCOM receiving either OCM or CCM. Air conduction (AC), bone conduction (BC), and air-bone gap (ABG) were compared between the two surgical methods. Further, recurrence, complications, pathological types, and the impact of prior ossiculoplasty were analyzed both before surgery and at three months post-ossiculoplasty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences in demographic features were observed between the OCM and CCM groups, including gender, age, complications, pathological types, and the use of ossiculoplasty. All cases presented with hearing loss and otorrhea. Both OCM and CCM significantly reduced AC, BC, and ABG thresholds, with OCM showing greater effectiveness in decreasing AC and BC thresholds compared to the CCM method. In patients with different pathological types, OCM did not result in a significantly greater reduction in AC, BC, or ABG thresholds compared to CCM. Further, there were no significant differences in hearing outcomes between OCM and CCM, regardless of whether patients underwent ossiculoplasty.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both OCM and CCM are effective in improving hearing in patients with CCOM. However, OCM demonstrates superior therapeutic effects compared to CCM, particularly in terms of effectiveness, although complications and drying time should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":7731,"journal":{"name":"American journal of translational research","volume":"17 1","pages":"308-319"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11826169/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open cavity mastoidectomy improves audiological outcomes for cholesteatomatous chronic otitis media patients compared to closed cavity mastoidectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Hongya Geng, Lina Han, Yongtao Tian, Gaifang Zhang, Xiuyun Wu, Chunhua Wang, Zhitao Fan, Ranran Liu, Ling He\",\"doi\":\"10.62347/DPOF4232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of open cavity mastoidectomy (OCM) versus closed cavity mastoidectomy (CCM) in patients with chronic otitis media (COM). This study aimed to compare audiological outcomes of OCM and CCM in cholesteatomatous COM (CCOM) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical data were collected from 102 patients with middle ear cholesteatomas who underwent OCM or CCM for CCOM at our hospital between February 2018 and May 2022. A retrospective analysis was conducted on audiological outcomes for patients with CCOM receiving either OCM or CCM. Air conduction (AC), bone conduction (BC), and air-bone gap (ABG) were compared between the two surgical methods. Further, recurrence, complications, pathological types, and the impact of prior ossiculoplasty were analyzed both before surgery and at three months post-ossiculoplasty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences in demographic features were observed between the OCM and CCM groups, including gender, age, complications, pathological types, and the use of ossiculoplasty. All cases presented with hearing loss and otorrhea. Both OCM and CCM significantly reduced AC, BC, and ABG thresholds, with OCM showing greater effectiveness in decreasing AC and BC thresholds compared to the CCM method. In patients with different pathological types, OCM did not result in a significantly greater reduction in AC, BC, or ABG thresholds compared to CCM. Further, there were no significant differences in hearing outcomes between OCM and CCM, regardless of whether patients underwent ossiculoplasty.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both OCM and CCM are effective in improving hearing in patients with CCOM. However, OCM demonstrates superior therapeutic effects compared to CCM, particularly in terms of effectiveness, although complications and drying time should be considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7731,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of translational research\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"308-319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11826169/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of translational research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62347/DPOF4232\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of translational research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62347/DPOF4232","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:关于开放式乳突切除术(OCM)与封闭式乳突切除术(CCM)在慢性中耳炎(COM)患者中的有效性一直存在争议。本研究旨在比较胆脂瘤性COM (CCOM)患者OCM和CCM的听力学结果。方法:收集2018年2月至2022年5月我院中耳胆脂瘤行OCM或CCM治疗cccom的102例患者的临床资料。回顾性分析了接受OCM或CCM治疗的CCOM患者的听力学结果。比较两种手术方式的空气传导(AC)、骨传导(BC)和气骨间隙(ABG)。此外,我们还分析了手术前和术后3个月的复发、并发症、病理类型和先前的听骨成形术的影响。结果:OCM组和CCM组在人口统计学特征,包括性别、年龄、并发症、病理类型和使用听骨成形术方面没有显著差异。所有病例均表现为听力损失和耳漏。OCM和CCM都能显著降低AC、BC和ABG阈值,与CCM方法相比,OCM在降低AC和BC阈值方面表现出更大的有效性。在不同病理类型的患者中,与CCM相比,OCM并未导致AC、BC或ABG阈值的显著降低。此外,无论患者是否接受听骨成形术,OCM和CCM之间的听力结果没有显著差异。结论:OCM和CCM均能有效改善CCOM患者的听力。然而,与CCM相比,OCM表现出更好的治疗效果,特别是在有效性方面,尽管需要考虑并发症和干燥时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Open cavity mastoidectomy improves audiological outcomes for cholesteatomatous chronic otitis media patients compared to closed cavity mastoidectomy.

Objectives: There is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of open cavity mastoidectomy (OCM) versus closed cavity mastoidectomy (CCM) in patients with chronic otitis media (COM). This study aimed to compare audiological outcomes of OCM and CCM in cholesteatomatous COM (CCOM) patients.

Methods: Clinical data were collected from 102 patients with middle ear cholesteatomas who underwent OCM or CCM for CCOM at our hospital between February 2018 and May 2022. A retrospective analysis was conducted on audiological outcomes for patients with CCOM receiving either OCM or CCM. Air conduction (AC), bone conduction (BC), and air-bone gap (ABG) were compared between the two surgical methods. Further, recurrence, complications, pathological types, and the impact of prior ossiculoplasty were analyzed both before surgery and at three months post-ossiculoplasty.

Results: No significant differences in demographic features were observed between the OCM and CCM groups, including gender, age, complications, pathological types, and the use of ossiculoplasty. All cases presented with hearing loss and otorrhea. Both OCM and CCM significantly reduced AC, BC, and ABG thresholds, with OCM showing greater effectiveness in decreasing AC and BC thresholds compared to the CCM method. In patients with different pathological types, OCM did not result in a significantly greater reduction in AC, BC, or ABG thresholds compared to CCM. Further, there were no significant differences in hearing outcomes between OCM and CCM, regardless of whether patients underwent ossiculoplasty.

Conclusions: Both OCM and CCM are effective in improving hearing in patients with CCOM. However, OCM demonstrates superior therapeutic effects compared to CCM, particularly in terms of effectiveness, although complications and drying time should be considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of translational research
American journal of translational research ONCOLOGY-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
自引率
0.00%
发文量
552
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of SWIM technology combined with direct aspiration first pass technique for large vessel occlusion in acute ischemic stroke. Effects of neoadjuvant novel endocrine therapy combined with prostatic artery embolization on SII, PNI, and bRFS in patients with prostate cancer. Efficacy evaluation and mechanism exploration of Dachaihu Decoction in treating hyperlipidemia: an integrated network meta-analysis and network pharmacology study. Association between mandibular third molar impaction pattern and mandibular crowding severity: a retrospective radiographic study. Association between inflammatory cytokine gene polymorphisms and asthma susceptibility in Chinese Han children: a retrospective case-control study for potential diagnostic biomarkers.
×
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