Literature DB >> 26335290

Hearing outcome after sequential cholesteatoma surgery.

Susen Lailach1, Thomas Zahnert2, Nikoloz Lasurashvili2, Max Kemper2, Thomas Beleites2, Marcus Neudert2.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess hearing outcome after sequential cholesteatoma surgery stratified for exclusively transcanal technique (ETC), combined transcanal and transmastoidal technique (TCM) and canal wall down surgery (CWD) and to analyze the impact of ossicular reconstruction technique (partial ossicular replacement prostheses/PORP and total ossicular replacement prostheses/TORP) on hearing outcome. This study is a retrospective case review and clinical case study conducted in a tertiary referral center. Patients who underwent 376 cholesteatoma surgeries (2007-2009) and 92 ears in clinical re-examination at least 12 months postoperatively were included. Sequential cholesteatoma surgery with ETC, TCM, or CWD; ossiculoplasty with PORP or TORP were the interventions administered. Pre- and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) and air conduction threshold (AC) for 0.5-3 kHz were the main outcome measures. Overall, the mean preoperative ABG decreased from 25.3 ± 1.3 to 19.8 ± 0.9 dB with a mean ABG closure of 5.4 ± 1.3 dB (p ≤ 0.001). According to surgical technique, the postoperative ABG after CWD 23.5 ± 2.1 was significantly worse compared to ETC (17.3 ± 1.0 dB, p < 0.05) and TCM (19.4 ± 1.3 dB). A significant ABG closure was observed after ETC (6.8 ± 2.0 dB, p < 0.01) and TCM (6.5 ± 2.0 dB, p < 0.01) contrary to CWD (2.1 ± 2.9 dB, p > 0.05). Patients receiving PORP showed a significantly less ABG postoperatively (19.0 ± 0.9 dB, p ≤ 0.05) compared to the TORP group (24.1 ± 2.5 dB). However, a significant hearing gain was assessed after PORP- (4.7 ± 1.6 dB, p ≤ 0.01) and TORP- implantation (10.4 ± 3.7 dB, p ≤ 0.01). Sequential cholesteatoma surgery allowed for an excellent hearing outcome postoperatively. An intact posterior canal wall and a present stapes suprastructure were identified to predict a significantly superior hearing result. In addition to the technical and prosthetic considerations, the audiological outcome was confounded by the attending middle ear pathology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Canal wall down; Canal wall up; Cholesteatoma; Hearing outcome; Intact canal wall; Ossiculoplasty; Partial ossicular reconstruction prostheses; Total ossicular reconstruction prostheses; Tympanoplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26335290     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3767-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  39 in total

1.  [Results after rebuilding the ossicular chain using the autogenous incus, ionomer-cement-and titanium implants (tympanoplasty type III)].

Authors:  G Geyer; J Rocker
Journal:  Laryngorhinootologie       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 1.057

2.  Results with titanium ossicular reconstruction prostheses.

Authors:  Edward K Gardner; C Gary Jackson; David M Kaylie
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  [The acoustics of the open mastoid cavity (so-called "radical cavity") and its modification by surgical measures. II. Clinical studies].

Authors:  J Hartwein
Journal:  Laryngorhinootologie       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 1.057

4.  How we do it: tympanoplasty: are different three- and four-frequency averages comparable?

Authors:  P J D Dawes; D Welch; P Lee
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.597

5.  Hearing results with the titanium ossicular replacement prostheses.

Authors:  Sébastien Schmerber; Joelle Troussier; Georges Dumas; Jean-Pierre Lavieille; Dinh-qui Nguyen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2005-12-03       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Osseointegration of titanium prostheses on the stapes footplate.

Authors:  Marcus Neudert; Thomas Beleites; Michael Ney; Anne Kluge; Nikoloz Lasurashvili; Matthias Bornitz; Dieter Scharnweber; Thomas Zahnert
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-01-12

7.  Titanium versus autograft ossiculoplasty.

Authors:  Jim C W Fong; Philip Michael; Vivek Raut
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.494

8.  Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction.

Authors:  T Zahnert; K B Hüttenbrink; D Mürbe; M Bornitz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  2000-05

9.  Retrograde mastoidectomy on demand with soft-wall reconstruction in pediatric cholesteatoma.

Authors:  Miyako Hatano; Makoto Ito; Tomokazu Yoshizaki
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Malleus-to-footplate versus malleus-to-stapes-head ossicular reconstruction prostheses: temporal bone pressure gain measurements and clinical audiological data.

Authors:  Euan Murugasu; Sunil Puria; Joseph B Roberson
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  4 in total

1.  The effects of surgery type and different ossiculoplasty materials on the hearing results in cholesteatoma surgery.

Authors:  Sultan Şevik Eliçora; Duygu Erdem; Aykut Erdem Dinç; Murat Damar; Sultan Bişkin
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Audiological Outcome in Myringoplasties with an Intact Ossicular Chain: Is there a Difference between Chronic Otitis with or without Cholesteatoma?

Authors:  Eduardo de Barros Sarolli; Christoph Schlegel-Wagner; Thomas Edwin Linder
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-06-23

3.  Hearing outcome after tympanoplasty type III.

Authors:  A Tihanyi; I Speck; K Wolff; P Arnold; A Aschendorff; S Arndt
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 3.236

4.  Good results in the treatment of ossicular lesions without reconstruction - our explanation for seven cases.

Authors:  Silvio da Silva Caldas Neto; Mariana de Carvalho Leal; Nelson Caldas
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-04-22
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.