Erfurt Chiara, Westerhout Sanne F, Straatman Louise V, Smit Adriana L, Stokroos Robert J, Thomeer Hans G X M
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Front Surg. 2024 Apr 8;11:1381481. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1381481. eCollection 2024.
The primary objective was to determine whether obliteration of the epitympanic area and mastoid cavity during canal wall up (CWU) cholesteatoma surgery reduces the rate of recurrent and residual cholesteatoma compared to not obliterating the same area. The secondary objective was to compare postoperative hearing outcomes between both techniques.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary referral center. One-hundred-fourty-three ears were included of patients (≥18y) who underwent a CWU tympanomastoidectomy for cholesteatoma with or without bony obliteration between January 2015 and March 2020 in the University Medical Center Utrecht. The median follow-up was respectively 1.4 (IQR 1.1-2.2) vs. 2.0 years (IQR 1.2-3.1) ( = 0.013).
All patients underwent CWU tympanomastoidectomy for cholesteatoma. For 73 ears bone dust, Bonalive® or a combination was used for obliteration of the mastoid and epitympanic area, the rest of the ears ( = 70) were not obliterated. In accordance with the Dutch protocol, included patients are planned to undergo an MRI scan with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) one, three and five years after surgery to detect recurrent or residual cholesteatoma.
The primary outcome measure was recurrent and residual cholesteatoma as evaluated by MRI-DWI and/or micro-otoscopy and confirmed by micro-otoscopy and/or revision surgery. The secondary outcome measure was the postoperative hearing.
In this cohort, the group treated with canal wall up tympanomastoidectomy with subsequent bony obliteration (73 ears, 51.0%) had significantly lower recurrent (4.1%) and residual (6.8%) cholesteatoma rates than the group without obliteration (70 ears, 25.7% and 20.0%, respectively; < 0.001). There was no significant difference between both groups in postoperative bone conduction thresholds (mean difference 2.7 dB, = 0.221) as well as the mean air-bone gap closure 6 weeks after surgery (2.3 dB in the non-obliteration and 1.5 dB in the obliteration group, = 0.903).
Based on our results, a canal wall up tympanomastoidectomy with bony obliteration is the treatment of choice, since the recurrent and residual disease rate is lower compared to the group without obliteration. The bony obliteration technique does not seem to affect the perceptive or conductive hearing results, as these are similar between both groups.
主要目的是确定在开放式乳突根治术(CWU)治疗胆脂瘤时,上鼓室区域和乳突腔的填塞与不进行该区域填塞相比,是否能降低胆脂瘤复发和残留的发生率。次要目的是比较两种技术的术后听力结果。
在一家三级转诊中心进行了一项回顾性队列研究。纳入了2015年1月至2020年3月在乌得勒支大学医学中心接受CWU鼓室乳突切除术治疗胆脂瘤且有或无骨质填塞的143例患者(≥18岁)的耳朵。中位随访时间分别为1.4年(四分位间距1.1 - 2.2年)和2.0年(四分位间距1.2 - 3.1年)(P = 0.013)。
所有患者均接受CWU鼓室乳突切除术治疗胆脂瘤。73只耳朵使用骨粉、Bonalive®或两者联合用于乳突和上鼓室区域的填塞,其余70只耳朵未进行填塞。根据荷兰方案,纳入的患者计划在术后1年、3年和5年进行磁共振成像(MRI)弥散加权成像(DWI)扫描,以检测复发或残留的胆脂瘤。
主要观察指标是通过MRI - DWI和/或显微耳镜检查评估并经显微耳镜检查和/或翻修手术证实的复发和残留胆脂瘤。次要观察指标是术后听力。
在该队列中,接受开放式鼓室乳突切除术后进行骨质填塞的组(73只耳朵,51.0%)的复发率(4.1%)和残留率(6.8%)明显低于未填塞组(70只耳朵,分别为25.7%和20.0%;P < 0.001)。两组术后骨导阈值无显著差异(平均差异2.7 dB,P = 0.221),术后6周平均气骨导差缩小也无显著差异(未填塞组为2.3 dB,填塞组为1.5 dB,P = 0.903)。
根据我们的结果,开放式鼓室乳突切除术后进行骨质填塞是首选治疗方法,因为与未填塞组相比,复发和残留疾病率更低。骨质填塞技术似乎不影响感音或传导性听力结果,因为两组之间相似。