Literature DB >> 16151324

Evaluation of attic retraction pockets by microendoscopy.

Seiji Kakehata1, Koji Hozawa, Kazunori Futai, Hideichi Shinkawa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Attic retraction pockets (RPs) are one of the important sequelae of otitis media with effusion and are classified on the basis of the findings of otoscopy or otomicroscopy. It is unclear when and how RPs turn into cholesteatomas. We compared the findings of RPs obtained with the use of a microendoscope with those from an otomicroscope to determine the extension of RPs. STUDY
DESIGN: Comparative study. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven attic RPs (Tos type III or IV) and 10 precholesteatomas previously classified under an otomicroscope were reexamined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A high-resolution, fine, rigid microendoscope with an outer diameter of 1.0 mm was used to observe the extension of a retraction. In addition, to confirm the extent of the RP, computed tomography (CT) scans using water as the contrast media were performed in representative cases.
RESULTS: Endoscopy with the microendoscope revealed that in 59%, the RP was deeper than indicated by the initial otomicroscopic estimation, suggesting that the extension of the RP was underestimated. The findings of water-enhanced CT scans were comparable with the endoscopic findings. The bottom was observable with the microendoscope and the otomicroscope in 20 (74%) and 11 (41%) of 27 RPs, respectively. Seven ears had a deeper RP, which extended beyond the incudomallear joint. Of the 10 precholesteatoma cases, in which the bottoms were not visible with an otomicroscope or conventional endoscopes, the microendoscope revealed the bottom in 5 (50%).
CONCLUSION: On the basis of the observations of our study, we suggest that reexamination of cases of RP classified as Tos type III or IV, preferably with a microendoscope, if available, and assessment of the depth of the RP using water-enhanced CT, would be useful and that careful follow-up is necessary for deep RPs because of a potential risk of development into cholesteatoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16151324     DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185072.73446.09

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  7 in total

Review 1.  Tympanic membrane retraction pocket staging: is it worthwhile?

Authors:  Musaed Alzahrani; Issam Saliba
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Endoscopic transcanal middle ear surgery.

Authors:  Muaaz Tarabichi
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2010-06-19

3.  A tiny retraction of the pars flaccida may conceal an attic cholesteatoma.

Authors:  Geon Woo Kim; Hwi Kyeong Jung; Jae Moon Sung; Jae Soon Kim; Chang Woo Kim
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  The HD-Panoramic Visualization System: a new visualization system for ENT surgery.

Authors:  G Strauss; N Bahrami; M Hofer; E Dittrich; M Strauss; A Dietz
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-12-20       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 5.  Diseases of the middle ear in childhood.

Authors:  Amir Minovi; Stefan Dazert
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2014-12-01

Review 6.  An overview of endoscopic ear surgery in 2018.

Authors:  Mustafa Kapadiya; Muaaz Tarabichi
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-05-24

Review 7.  Developmental aspects of the tympanic membrane: Shedding light on function and disease.

Authors:  Mona Mozaffari; Dan Jiang; Abigail S Tucker
Journal:  Genesis       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 2.487

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.