Korean Journal of Audiology (대한청각학회지)

The Korean Audiology Society (대한청각학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Is Ossiculoplasty Necessary in Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy? Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Type 0 Tympanoplasty and Ossiculoplasty

  • Suh, Michelle J. (Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Jeju National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jin-A (Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Jeju National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yi, Hee Jun (Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Jeju National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Song, Chan Il (Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2020.12.11
  • Accepted : 2021.03.22
  • Published : 2021.04.20
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: To assess whether the audiological and clinical outcomes of type 0 tympanoplasty (T0) performed using cartilage were comparable with those of ossiculoplasty in patients who underwent canal wall down mastoidectomy (CWDM). Subjects and Methods: This study included patients who had chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma and underwent CWDM with ossiculoplasty involving partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP), total ossicular replacement prosthesis (TORP), or T0. Anatomical success rates and hearing outcomes were analyzed. Results: Seventy-two patients were included in this study; 29 of them underwent CWDM with T0, 27 underwent CWDM with PORP, while 16 underwent CWDM with TORP. The difference in mean improvement in the air-bone gap (ABG) between the groups was not significant. The differences in the rates of ABG closure to ≤10 dB HL (p=0.030) and ≤20 dB HL (p=0.029) were significant. There were significant differences in improvements in the ABG at 3 kHz among the PORP, TORP, and T0 groups. Conclusions: The audiological outcomes of CWDM with ossiculoplasty seemed to be better than those of CWDM with T0 with no significant difference in the incidence of complications following ossiculoplasty and T0.

Keywords

References

  1. Kerckhoffs KG, Kommer MB, van Strien TH, Visscher SJ, Bruijnzeel H, Smit AL, et al. The disease recurrence rate after the canal wall up or canal wall down technique in adults. Laryngoscope 2016;126:980-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25591
  2. Dornhoffer JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006;39:1161-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2006.08.006
  3. Iniguez-Cuadra R, Alobid I, Bores-Domenech A, Menendez-Colino LM, Caballero-Borrego M, Bernal-Sprekelsen M. Type III tympanoplasty with titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:409-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181cc04b5
  4. Nyrop M, Bonding P. Extensive cholesteatoma: long-term results of three surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol 1997;111:521-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221510013782X
  5. Stankovic MD. Audiologic results of surgery for cholesteatoma: short- and long-term follow-up of influential factors. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:933-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31818201af
  6. Dornhoffer JL, Gardner E. Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty: a statistical staging system. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:299-304. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200105000-00005
  7. Lailach S, Zahnert T, Lasurashvili N, Kemper M, Beleites T, Neudert M. Hearing outcome after sequential cholesteatoma surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:2035-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3767-6
  8. Siddiq MA, East DM. Long-term hearing results of incus transposition. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29:115-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00791.x
  9. Lee JI, Yoo SH, Lee CW, Song CI, Yoo MH, Park HJ. Short-term hearing results using ossicular replacement prostheses of hydroxyapatite versus titanium. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:2731-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3274-1
  10. Kyrodimos E, Sismanis A, Santos D. Type III cartilage "shield" tympanoplasty: an effective procedure for hearing improvement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136:982-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.12.025
  11. Malafronte G, Filosa B, Mercone F. A new double-cartilage block ossiculoplasty: long-term results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:531-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e318170b63a
  12. Bartel R, Cruellas F, Hamdan M, Gonzalez-Compta X, Cisa E, Domenech I, et al. Hearing results after type III tympanoplasty: incus transposition versus PORP. A systematic review. Acta Otolaryngol 2018;138:617-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2018.1425901
  13. Cox MD, Page JC, Trinidade A, Dornhoffer JL. Long-term complications and surgical failures after ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:1450-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001572
  14. Querat C, Martin C, Prades JM, Richard C. Canal wall up tympanoplasty for cholesteatoma with intact stapes. Comparison of hearing results between cartilage and PORP on stapes and impact of malleus removal and total reinforcement of the tympanic membrane by cartilage. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2014;131:211-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2013.03.008
  15. Artuso A, di Nardo W, De Corso E, Marchese MR, Quaranta N. Canal wall down tympanoplasty surgery with or without ossiculoplasty in cholesteatoma: hearing results. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2004;24:2-7.
  16. Vartiainen E, Seppa J. Results of bone conduction following surgery for chronic ear disease. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1997;254:384-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01642555