Which technique is better for cholesteatoma surgery?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorDeniz, Mahmut
dc.contributor.authorUslu, C.
dc.contributor.authorKoldas, C.
dc.contributor.authorDeniz, B.
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-11T14:36:05Z
dc.date.available2022-05-11T14:36:05Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentFakülteler, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Kulak Burun ve Boğaz Hastalıkları Ana Bilim Dalı
dc.description.abstractObjective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term surgical outcomes and recurrence rates of three surgical techniques that are commonly used for cholesteatoma. Patients and methods: The hospital records of 132 patients with primary cholesteatoma who underwent surgery between January 1996 and December 2006 were evaluated retrospectively. Twelve cases had bilateral disease, and a total of 144 ears were treated. The patients were divided into three groups according to surgical technique: modified radical mastoidectomy (MRM) (n = 48 ears), radical mastoidectomy (RM) (n = 42 ears), and intact canal wall mastoidectomy (ICWM) (n = 54 ears). MRM and RM procedures are canal wall down (CWD) techniques, whereas the ICWM procedure is a canal wall up (CWU) technique. Postoperatively, all patients were followed up yearly for at least 6 years. The otomicroscopic features, cholesteatoma extension, surgical findings, and recurrence rates were compared in the groups. Results: Preoperative otomicroscopic examination showed attic retraction or perforation in 32% of the cases and central perforation in 11%. There was a higher cholesteatoma recurrence rate in the ICWM group than in the MRM and RM groups (p < 0.05), but there was also better hearing gain in the ICWM group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: There are several surgical techniques for eradicating cholesteatoma. Our study found that CWD procedures (RM, MRM) were more effective for the eradication of cholesteatoma, but hearing gain was better when a CWU technique was used. The choice of surgical technique should be individually tailored based on the pre-operative imaging and hearing examination findings.
dc.identifier.endpage115
dc.identifier.issn1781-782X
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.pmid26563010
dc.identifier.startpage109
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/8362
dc.identifier.volume11
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000360421600005
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.institutionauthorDeniz, Mahmut
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherRoyal Belgian Soc Ear, Nose, Throat, Head & Neck Surgery
dc.relation.ispartofB-Ent
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectOtitis media
dc.subjectcholesteatoma
dc.subjectmastoidectomy
dc.subjectrecurrence
dc.subjectCanal Wall
dc.subjectMiddle-Ear
dc.subjectObliteration
dc.titleWhich technique is better for cholesteatoma surgery?
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Tıp Fakültesi Koleksiyonu