One- versus two-session treatment in type IV tympanoplasty

Year 2019, Volume: 29 Issue: 1, 41 - 46, 10.03.2019

Suphi Bulğurcu İlker Burak Arslan Ömer Uğur İbrahim Çukurova

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare hearing results, cholesteatoma recurrence, and costs of one- versus two-session treatment in patients undergoing type IV tympanoplasty. Patients and Methods: Between June 2013 and August 2015, a total of 37 patients 20 females, 17 males; mean age 32.5±13.5 years; range, 20 to 48 years who were operated for chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma were included. Hearing reconstruction was done in one session in 19 patients Group 1 and in two sessions in 18 patients Group 2 . All patients underwent type IV tympanoplasty with closed cavity. Results: The mean age was 40.4±10.7 years and 26.5±12.4 years in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Recovery of hearing in Group 2 was significantly better than in Group 1 p=0.001 . The mean length of hospitalization was 6.8±2.6 days in Group 1 and 14.6±3.2 days in Group 2. In Group 1, cholesteatoma recurrence was found in two patients during diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. In the second-look operations, cholesteatoma recurrence was found in four patients in Group 2. Total cost of surgery and care was significantly higher in Group 2 than in Group 1 p=0.001 . Conclusion: According to our study results, two-session operation seems to be more beneficial with successful hearing restoration without additional costs

Keywords

Second-look, cholesteatoma, tympanoplasty

References

• Asma A, Shaharudin MH, Muhd Almyzan A, Lokman S. Outcome of canal wall down mastoidectomy: experience in sixty three cases. Med J Malaysia 2013;68:217-21.
• Bakaj T, Zbrozkova LB, Salzman R, Tedla M, Starek I. Recidivous cholesteatoma: DWI MR after canal wall up and canal wall down mastoidectomy. Bratisl Lek Listy 2016;117:515-520.
• Haginomori S, Takamaki A, Nonaka R, Takenaka H. Residual cholesteatoma: incidence and localization in canal wall down tympanoplasty with soft-wall reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;134:652-7.
• Ho SY, Kveton JF. Efficacy of the 2-staged procedure in the management of cholesteatoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:541-5.
• Tos M. Manual of middle ear surgery. New York: Thieme; 1993.
• Can IH, Metin M , Bayız Ü, Yazıcı H, Samim E. The Evaluation of the efficacy of canal wall up procedure for limited cholesteatoma by second look procedure. Dirim Tıp Gazetesi 2011;86:1-5.
• de Zinis LO, Tonni D, Barezzani MG. Single-stage canal wall-down tympanoplasty: long-term results and prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010;119:304-12.
• Wilson KF, Hoggan RN, Shelton C. Tympanoplasty with intact canal wall mastoidectomy for cholesteatoma: long-term surgical outcomes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;149:292-5.
• Tos M, Lau T. Hearing after surgery for cholesteatoma using various techniques. Auris Nasus Larynx 1989;16:61-73.
• Walker PC, Mowry SE, Hansen MR, Gantz BJ. Long-term results of canal wall reconstruction tympanomastoidectomy. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:24- 30.
• Qotb M, Fawzy T, Ragab W. Single stage canal wall down mastoidectomy with reconstruction of the canal wall: 5 years’ experience in fayoum province, Egypt. J Int Adv Otol 2017;13:181-5.
• Kim HH, Battista RA, Kumar A, Wiet RJ. Should ossicular reconstruction be staged following tympanomastoidectomy. Laryngoscope 2006;116:47-51.