Identification of risk factors for residual cholesteatoma in children and adults: a retrospective study on 110 cases of revision surgery.

INTRODUCTION

Residual disease after cholesteatoma removal is still a challenge for the otorhinolaryngologist. Scheduled "second-look" surgery and, more recently, radiological screenings are used to identify residual cholesteatoma as early as possible. However, these procedures are cost-intensive and are accompanied by discomfort and risks for the patient.

OBJECTIVE

To identify anamnestic, clinical, and surgery-related risk factors for residual cholesteatoma.

METHODS

The charts of 108 patients, including children as well as adults, having undergone a second-look or revision surgery after initial cholesteatoma removal at a tertiary referral hospital, were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Gender, age, mastoid pneumatization, prior ventilation tube insertion, congenital cholesteatoma, erosion of ossicles, atticotomy, resection of chorda tympani, different reconstruction materials, and postoperative otorrhea did not emerge as statistically significant risk factors for residual disease. However, prior adenoid removal, cholesteatoma growth to the sinus tympani and to the antrum and mastoid, canal-wall-up 2 ways approach, and postoperative retraction and perforation were associated with a statistically higher rate of residual disease. A type A tympanogram as well as canal-wall-down plus reconstruction 2 ways approach for extended epitympanic and for extended epitympanic and mesotympanic cholesteatomas were associated with statistically lower rates of residual disease. A score including the postoperative retraction or perforation of the tympanic membrane, the quality of the postoperative tympanogram and the intraoperative extension of the cholesteatoma to the sinus tympani and/or the antrum was elaborated and proved to be suitable for predicting residual cholesteatoma with acceptable sensitivity and high specificity.

CONCLUSION

Cholesteatoma extension to the sinus tympani, antrum and mastoid makes a residual disease more likely. The canal-wall-down plus reconstruction 2 ways approach seems safe with similar rates of residual cholesteatoma and without the known disadvantages of canal-wall-down surgery. The described score can be useful for identifying patients who need a postoperative radiological control and a second-look surgery.