| Literature DB >> 34167591 |
Zhengcai Lou1, Zihan Lou2, Junzhi Sun3, Zhengnong Chen4,5, Shankai Yin2,6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of microwave ablation (MWA) eustachian tuboplasty for the treatment of patients with retracted tympanic membrane (TM) due to eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD).Entities:
Keywords: Eustachian tube dysfunction; Microwave ablation; Tympanic membrane; Tympanometry; Valsalva maneuver
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34167591 PMCID: PMC8223355 DOI: 10.1186/s40463-021-00520-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ISSN: 1916-0208
Fig. 1Endoscopic examination showed hyperplastic mucosa and a narrow tubal lumen (red arrows) in the cartilaginous portion of the ET (a and b)
Fig. 2Microwave ablation eustachian tuboplasty (a and b). Red arrows indicate the microwave antenna tip
Pre- and post-operative ETDQ-7 score
| Patient No. | Side of ear | Pre-op score | Post-op 6 m | Post-op 30 m | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | Change | Score | Change | |||
| 1 | Right | 23 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 |
| 2 | Right | 36 | 11 | 25 | 11 | 25 |
| 3 | Right | 29 | 12 | 17 | 10 | 19 |
| 4 | Left | 31 | 12 | 19 | 11 | 20 |
| 5 | Right | 29 | 10 | 19 | 10 | 19 |
| 6 | Left | 28 | 10 | 18 | 9 | 19 |
| 7 | Left | 33 | 10 | 23 | 8 | 25 |
| 8 | Left | 32 | 11 | 21 | 8 | 24 |
| 9 | Left | 37 | 28 | 19 | 15 | 22 |
| 10 | Right | 31 | 12 | 19 | 10 | 21 |
| 11 | Right | 30 | 11 | 19 | 10 | 20 |
| 12 | Right | 28 | 9 | 19 | 9 | 19 |
| 13 | Left | 27 | 23 | 4 | 22 | 5 |
| 14 | Right | 26 | 11 | 15 | 6 | 17 |
| 15 | Right | 30 | 14 | 16 | 11 | 19 |
| 16 | Right | 24 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 14 |
| 17 | Left | 31 | 15 | 16 | 12 | 19 |
| 18 | Left | 26 | 10 | 16 | 8 | 18 |
| Mean (SD) | 29.5 (2.8) | 12.8 (3.2) | 16.7 (3.6) | 10.6 (2.1) | 18.9 (2.9) | |
Pre-op and post-op mean air-bone gap
| Patient No. | Side of ear | Pre-op audiogram findings | Mean ABG (dB HL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-op | Post-op 6 m | Post-op 30 m | |||
| 1 | Right | CHL | 28.25 | 14.75 | 9.25 |
| 2 | Right | CHL | 31.25 | 29.75 | 12.25 |
| 3 | Right | CHL | 29.75 | 10.25 | 6.0 |
| 4 | Left | CHL | 22.5 | 11.25 | 7.25 |
| 5 | Right | CHL | 26.25 | 26.5 | 17.25 |
| 6 | Left | CHL | 22.5 | 12.75 | 6.25 |
| 7 | Left | CHL | 26.75 | 20.25 | 11.25 |
| 8 | Left | Mixed HL | 28.5 | 21.25 | 10.75 |
| 9 | Left | CHL | 28.25 | 25.5 | 22.25 |
| 10 | Right | CHL | 29.75 | 18.55 | 10.25 |
| 11 | Right | CHL | 35.25 | 33.25 | 20.75 |
| 12 | Right | CHL | 37.5 | 28.5 | 11.25 |
| 13 | Left | CHL | 26.25 | 33.25 | 33.75 |
| 14 | Right | CHL | 25.75 | 20.5 | 9.25 |
| 15 | Right | CHL | 31.25 | 13.5 | 7.25 |
| 16 | Right | CHL | 32.25 | 11.25 | 10.5 |
| 17 | Left | CHL | 24.75 | 10.25 | 10.25 |
| 18 | Left | CHL | 29.25 | 8.75 | 8.25 |
| Mean (SD) | 28.7 (2.9) | 19.7 (7.3) | 12.8 (5.5) | ||
Mean air–bone gap was calculated from findings at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3/4 kHz. Only changes in mean air–bone gap of 5 dB HL or more were considered significant because of inter-test variability
Pre-op Pre-operative, post-op Post-operative, CHL Conductive hearing loss, HL Hearing loss
Fig. 3Pre- and postoperative cartilaginous portion of the ET. Preoperative assessment (a). Assessments at 2 weeks (b), 8 weeks (c), 6 months (d), and 31 months (e) postoperatively
Overview of patient details and outcome of Eustachian tuboplasty
| Patient No. | Side of ear | Pre-operative | Post-operative 6 m | Post-operative 30 m | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endoscope (Sade Grade) | Tympanometry | Valsalva | Endoscope (Sade Grade) | Tympanometry | Valsalva | Endoscope (Sade Grade) | Tympanometry | Valsalva | ||
| 1 | Right | III | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | II | C | (+) |
| 2 | Right | II | B | (−) | Normal | A | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 3 | Right | III | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 4 | Left | III | B | (−) | III | B | (−) | III | C | (+) |
| 5 | Right | II | B | (−) | Normal | A | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 6 | Left | III | C | (−) | II | C | (−) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 7 | Left | III | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 8 | Left | II | B | (−) | Normal | A | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 9 | Left | III | B | (−) | III | B | (−) | II | C | (−) |
| 10 | Right | III | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 11 | Right | II | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 12 | Right | III | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 13 | Left | III | C | (−) | III | B | (−) | III | B | (−) |
| 14 | Right | III | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 15 | Right | III | B | (−) | III | B | (−) | I | A | (+) |
| 16 | Right | II | B | (−) | Normal | A | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 17 | Left | III | C | (−) | I | A | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
| 18 | Left | III | B | (−) | II | C | (+) | Normal | A | (+) |
Negative:(−); Positive(+)
The summary of subjective and objective measure
| Pre-operative | Post-operative 6 m | Post-op 30 m | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ETDQ-7 scores | 29.5 ± 2.8 | 12.8 ± 3.2 | 10.6 ± 2.1 |
| Mean ABG (dB HL) | 28.7 ± 2.9 | 19.7 ± 7.3 | 12.8 ± 5.5 |
| 0–10 | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (16.7%) | 12 (66.7%) |
| 11–20 | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (44.4%) | 4 (22.2%) |
| 21–30 | 13 (72.2%) | 5 (27.8%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| 31–40 | 5 (27.8%) | 2 (11.1%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| TM status | |||
| Sade Grade III | 13 (72.2%) | 4 (22.2%) | 2 (11.1%) |
| Sade Grade II | 5 (27.8%) | 9 (50.0%) | 2 (11.1%) |
| Sade Grade I | 0 | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| Normal | 0 | 4 (22.2%) | 13 (72.2%) |
| Tympanograms | |||
| Type B | 15 (83.3%) | 4 (22.2%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| Type C | 3 (16.7%) | 9 (50.0%) | 3 (16.7%) |
| Type A | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (27.8%) | 14 (77.7%) |
| Valsalva maneuver | |||
| Negative | 18 (100.0%) | 5 (27.8%) | 2 (11.1%) |
| Positive | 0 (0.0%) | 13 (72.2%) | 16 (88.9%) |
| Videoendoscopy of ET | |||
| Complete opening | 0 | 14 (77.7%) | 15 (83.3%) |
| Restrictive opening | 0 | 1 (5.6%) | 2 (11.1%) |
| Failure opening | 18 (100.0%) | 3 (16.7%) | 1 (5.6%) |
Fig. 4Pre- and postoperative TM status. Preoperative assessment (a). Assessments at 2 weeks (b), 8 weeks (c), 6 months (d), and 31 months (e) postoperatively