Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:06:31.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The outcomes of endoscopic approach for attic cholesteatoma: underwater continuous drilling versus traditional intermittent drilling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2021

D Wang ,
X Zhao ,
W Li ,
X Li ,
R Zhu  and
W Wang
D Wang
Affiliation:
ENT Institute and Otorhinolaryngology Department, Affiliated Eye and ENT Hospital, Fudan University, China Key Laboratory of Hearing Medicine of National Health and Family Planning Commission, Shanghai, China
X Zhao
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Xinhua Hospital, Yining, China
W Li
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China
X Li
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Zhengzhou Central Hospital affiliated to Zhengzhou University, China
R Zhu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Ya'an People's Hospital, Sichuan, China
W Wang*
Affiliation:
ENT Institute and Otorhinolaryngology Department, Affiliated Eye and ENT Hospital, Fudan University, China Key Laboratory of Hearing Medicine of National Health and Family Planning Commission, Shanghai, China
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Wuqing Wang, ENT Institute and Otorhinolaryngology Department, Affiliated Eye and ENT Hospital, Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Rd, Shanghai200031, China E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to analyse the differences between underwater continuous drilling and traditional intermittent drilling for attic cholesteatoma.

Methods

The clinical data of 61 patients with attic cholesteatoma who underwent an endoscopic approach procedure were analysed. Forty patients underwent underwater continuous drilling (group A), and 21 patients underwent traditional intermittent drilling (group B).

Results

The operation time was 64.61 ± 12.90 minutes in group A and 79.60 ± 16.81 minutes in group B (p < 0.05). The anaesthesia time was 102.69 ± 17.93 minutes in group A and 119.82 ± 19.28 minutes in group B (p < 0.05). The dry ear time, the hearing improvement rate and the post-operative complications were no different in the two groups.

Conclusion

Group A and group B had no differences in surgical outcome or hearing recovery. However, treatment in the former group resulted in a significantly shortened operation and anaesthesia time.

Keywords

EndoscopyCholesteatomaOperative
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 4 , April 2021 , pp. 310 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr W Wang takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Semaan, MT, Megerian, CA. The pathophysiology of cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006;39:1143–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charachon, R, Schmerber, S, Lavieille, JP. Middle ear cholesteatoma surgery. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 1999;116:322–40Google ScholarPubMed
Karchier, EB, Niemczyk, K, Orlowski, A. Comparison of visualization of the middle ear by microscope and endoscopes of 30 and 45° through posterior tympanotomy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2014;9:276–81Google ScholarPubMed
Bennett, ML, Zhang, D, Labadie, RF, Noble, JH. Comparison of middle ear visualization with endoscopy and microscopy. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:362–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dedmon, MM, Kozin, ED, Lee, DJ. Development of a temporal bone model for transcanal endoscopic ear surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;153:613–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magliulo, G, Iannella, G. Endoscopic versus microscopic approach in attic cholesteatoma surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 2018;39:25–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, JH, Ahn, J, Moon, IJ. Transcanal endoscopic ear surgery for congenital cholesteatoma. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2018;11:233–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bae, MR, Kang, WS, Chung, JW. Comparison of the clinical results of attic cholesteatoma treatment: endoscopic versus microscopic ear surgery. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2019;12:156–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, YC, Kuo, CL, Huang, TC. A retrospective comparative study of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;47:321–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Marchioni, D, Kakehata, S, Presutti, L, Villari, D. Endoscopic management of attic cholesteatoma: long-term results. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2016;49:1265–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottrill, I Jr. Perrault, DF, Poe, D. In vitro and in vivo determination of the thermal effect of middle ear endoscopy. Laryngoscope 1996;106:213–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozin, ED, Lehmann, A, Carter, M, Hight, E, Cohen, M, Nakajima, HH et al. Thermal effects of endoscopy in a human temporal bone model: implications for endoscopic ear surgery. Laryngoscope 2014;124:101–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayache, S, Tramier, B, Strunski, V. Otoendoscopy in cholesteatoma surgery of the middle ear: what benefits can be expected? Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1085–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presutti, L, Gioacchini, FM, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Villari, D, Marchioni, D. Results of endoscopic middle ear surgery for cholesteatoma treatment: a systematic review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2014;34:153–7Google ScholarPubMed
Glikson, E, Yousovich, R, Mansour, J, Wolf, M, Migirov, L, Shapira, Y. Transcanal. Endoscopic ear surgery for middle ear cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:e41–e45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchioni, D, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Molteni, G, Artioli, FL, Genovese, E, Presutti, L. Selective epitympanic dysventilation syndrome. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1028–33Google ScholarPubMed
Marchioni, D, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Piccinini, A, Genovese, E, Presutti, L. Inferior retrotympanum revisited: an endoscopic anatomic study. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1880–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presutti, L, Anschuetz, L, Rubini, A, Ruberto, M, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Dematte, M et al. The impact of the transcanal endoscopic approach and mastoid preservation on recurrence of primary acquired attic cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:445–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomassin, JM, Korchia, D, Doris, JM. Endoscopic-guided otosurgery in the prevention of residual cholesteatomas. Laryngoscope 1993;103:939–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamauchi, D, Yamazaki, M, Ohta, J, Kadowaki, S, Nomura, K, Hidaka, H et al. Closure technique for labyrinthine fistula by “underwater” endoscopic ear surgery. Laryngoscope 2014;124:2616–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamauchi, D, Hara, Y, Hidaka, H, Kawase, T, Katori, Y. How I do it: underwater endoscopic ear surgery for plugging in superior canal. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:745–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishiike, S, Oshima, K, Imai, T, Uetsuka, S. A novel endoscopic hydro-mastoidectomy technique for transcanal endoscopic ear. J Laryngol Otol 2019;133:248–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed