Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:29:51.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tensa retraction cholesteatoma: treatment and long-term results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

T. Lau
Affiliation:
E.N.T. Department, Gentofte University Hospital, DK-2900 Hellerup, Denmark
M. Tos
Affiliation:
E.N.T. Department, Gentofte University Hospital, DK-2900 Hellerup, Denmark

Abstract

To obtain the best possible results of treatment of acquired cholesteatoma, we made a subdivision of cholesteatoma types into attic and pars tensa cholesteatomas, and subdivided the latter further into tensa retraction cholesteatoma and sinus cholesteatomas. Tensa retraction cholesteatoma is defined as arising from a retraction or perforation of the whole pars tensa, whereas sinus cholesteatoma is defined as arising from a retraction or perforation of the postero-superior part of the tensa. We present the long-term results obtained in tensa retraction cholesteatomas treated with one stage surgery from 1964 to 1980. Median observation time was 9 years, range 2 to 19 years. Sixty-one ears were treated without mastoidectomy, whereas 71 ears had canal wall-up mastoidectomy and 64 ears had canal wall-down mastoidectomy. The total recurrence rate was 13.3 per cent; 17 ears had residual cholesteatoma, and nine ears had recurrent cholesteatoma. The best results were obtained in ears with an intact ossicular chain where mastoidectomy was not performed. In 49 per cent of the cases, the cholesteatoma was confined to the tympanic cavity without reaching the aditus, antrum or mastoid process. About one-third to one-quarter of the ears had tympanoplasty only, with removal of the cholesteatoma through the ear canal.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1989

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.)

References

Charachon, R. (1978) Cholesteatoma, epidermization: choice between closed and obliteration technique. Clinical Otolaryngology, 3: 363367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glasscock, M. E. and Miller, G. W. (1976) Intact canal wall tympanoplasty in the management of cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope, 86: 16391657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, C. (1982) In Cholesteatoma and Mastoid Surgery (Sadé, J., ed.) pp. 455459. Kugler, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lau, T. and Tos, M. (1988a) Attic cholesteatoma. Recurrence related to observation time. American Journal of Otolaryngology, (in press).Google Scholar
Lau, T. and Tos, M. (1988b) Treatment of sinus cholesteatoma. Long-term results and recurrence rate. Archives of Otolaryngology (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palva, T., Karma, P. and Palva, A. (1977) In Cholesteatoma First International Conference (McCabe, B. F., Sadé, J. and Abramson, M., eds.), pp. 363367. Aesculapius, Birmingham (U.S.A.).Google Scholar
Sheehy, J. L. and Crabtree, J. A. (1973) Tympanoplasty: Staging the operation. Laryngoscope, 83: 15941621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smyth, G. D. L. (1976) Postoperative cholesteatoma in combined approach tympanoplasty. Fifteen-year report on tympanoplasty. Part 1. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 90: 597621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tos, M. (1969a) Obliteration of the cavity in mastoidectomy. Acta Otolaryngologica, 67: 516520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tos, M. (1969b) Combined grafts in total reconstruction of old cavities. ORL Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Its Related Specialities, 39: 218226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tos, M. (1982) Modification of combined-approach tympanoplasty in attic cholesteatoma. Archives of Otolaryngology, 108: 772778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tos, M. and Poulsen, G. (1980) Attic retractions following secretory otitis. Acta Otolaryngologica, 89: 478486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed