PURPOSE: Appropriate reconstruction of the canal wall or maintenance of the middle ear pressure in cholesteatoma may help in preventing recurrence. Retrograde mastoidectomy with canal wall reconstruction (RMR) can overcome the challenge of a wider canal wall defect or temporal bone immaturity, which possibly increases the recurrence risk. This study compared the outcomes of RMR and intact canal wall tympanomastoidectomy (ICW) for cholesteatomas with minimal mastoid extension and quantitatively evaluate the relationship between anatomical features and recurrence. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients who had undergone primary ICW or RMR for pars flaccida cholesteatoma with minimal mastoid extension from 2009 to 2019. The main outcome measures were anatomical measurements of the shortest distance between the cranial fossa and the upper canal wall (SCU), attic volume, and bony defect area of the canal wall (BDC) on computed tomography; recidivism; and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the preoperative anatomical factors, recidivism incidence, and postoperative ABG between the RMR (n = 20) and ICW (n = 60) groups. However, the median BDC was significantly greater in the RMR group (58.3 vs. 37.0 mm2). There was no significant difference in the SCU and attic volume between patients with and without recurrence. CONCLUSION: Selection of RMR or ICW may not affect recidivism and hearing outcomes in cholesteatoma with minimal mastoid extension. Bony defect size and attic narrowness were not associated with recurrence. Considering wider visualization and one-staged operation, RMR can be more adaptable than ICW for cholesteatoma with minimal mastoid extension.
PURPOSE: Appropriate reconstruction of the canal wall or maintenance of the middle ear pressure in cholesteatoma may help in preventing recurrence. Retrograde mastoidectomy with canal wall reconstruction (RMR) can overcome the challenge of a wider canal wall defect or temporal bone immaturity, which possibly increases the recurrence risk. This study compared the outcomes of RMR and intact canal wall tympanomastoidectomy (ICW) for cholesteatomas with minimal mastoid extension and quantitatively evaluate the relationship between anatomical features and recurrence. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients who had undergone primary ICW or RMR for pars flaccida cholesteatoma with minimal mastoid extension from 2009 to 2019. The main outcome measures were anatomical measurements of the shortest distance between the cranial fossa and the upper canal wall (SCU), attic volume, and bony defect area of the canal wall (BDC) on computed tomography; recidivism; and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the preoperative anatomical factors, recidivism incidence, and postoperative ABG between the RMR (n = 20) and ICW (n = 60) groups. However, the median BDC was significantly greater in the RMR group (58.3 vs. 37.0 mm2). There was no significant difference in the SCU and attic volume between patients with and without recurrence. CONCLUSION: Selection of RMR or ICW may not affect recidivism and hearing outcomes in cholesteatoma with minimal mastoid extension. Bony defect size and attic narrowness were not associated with recurrence. Considering wider visualization and one-staged operation, RMR can be more adaptable than ICW for cholesteatoma with minimal mastoid extension.