Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision canal-wall down surgery: comparison of surgical outcomes with three different techniques

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the role of the endoscope in revision canal-wall down (CWD) tympanomastoid surgery and compare its use to the more traditional microscopic approach. Moreover, we aim to investigate functional outcomes of revision surgeries in a cohort of two tertiary reference centers.

Methods

A total of 103 patients undergoing revision surgery after previous CWD tympanomastoidectomy were included in the present study and divided in three groups according to the surgical technique used: endoscope exclusive (n = 22), combined (n = 35) and microscope exclusive (n = 46). Data regarding surgical indications, pre-operative clinical and audiological assessments, intraoperative findings and surgical considerations were extracted. During follow-up, data regarding anatomic and audiologic outcomes were collected and persistence or recurrence of the disease assessed.

Results

The most frequent sites of cholesteatoma recurrence or persistence was the anterior epitympanum. There was a statistically significant ABG improvement of − 6.02 dB HL (95% CI − 8.87 to − 3.16, p < 0.001) between pre-operative and postoperative ABG, without significant effect of surgical technique. During follow-up, no significant differences regarding disease or otorrhea control were observed. Duration of surgery and hospitalization was shorter in the endoscopic cohort without statistical significance. Intra- and postoperative complications were lower in the endoscopic group.

Conclusion

Revision CWD surgery can take advantage of the endoscope as a minimally invasive exclusive or adjunct tool to traditional microscopic procedures. Outcome measures of endoscopic revision CWD surgery showed anatomic and functional results comparable to those of the microscopic group. The complication rate, the duration of surgery and hospitalization were favorable in the endoscopic group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

All relevant data and the final dataset are available upon motivated request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Kasenõmm P (2013) Intraoperative findings of revision canal wall-down tympanomastoid surgery. ActaOtolaryngol 133(8):826–832. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2013.787645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kerckhoffs KGP, Kommer MBJ, van Strien THL et al (2016) The disease recurrence rate after the canal wall up or canal wall down technique in adults: a review on cholesteatoma recidivism after CWU and CWD. Laryngoscope 126(4):980–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walker PC, Mowry SE, Hansen MR, Gantz BJ (2014) Long-term results of canal wall reconstruction tympanomastoidectomy. OtolNeurotol 35(6):954–960. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182a446da

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lucidi D, De Corso E, Paludetti G, Sergi B (2019) Quality of life and functional results in canal wall down vs canal wall up mastoidectomy. ActaOtorhinolaryngol Ital 39(1):53–60. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-2005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Fermi M, Bonali M et al (2018) Facial sinus endoscopic evaluation, radiologic assessment, and classification: facial sinus endoscopic study. Laryngoscope 128(10):2397–2402. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anschuetz L, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Bonali M et al (2018) Novel surgical and radiologic classification of the subtympanic sinus: implications for endoscopic ear surgery. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 159(6):1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818787180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen MS, Basonbul RA, Barber SR, Kozin ED, Rivas AC, Lee DJ (2018) Development and validation of an endoscopic ear surgery classification system: endoscopic ear surgery classification system. Laryngoscope 128(4):967–970. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum Associates

  9. Košec A, Kelava I, Ajduk J, Ries M, Trotić R, Bedeković V (2017) Significance of intraoperative findings in revision tympanomastoidectomy. Am J Otolaryngol 38(4):462–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.04.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pareschi R, Lepera D, Nucci R (2019) Canal wall down approach for tympano-mastoid cholesteatoma: long-term results and prognostic factors. ActaOtorhinolaryngol Ital 39(2):122–129. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-2237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Das S, Dutta M, Panja T, Sinha R (2019) Chronic draining ear and cholesteatoma recidivism: a retrospection from clinical, imaging, and surgical perspectives. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 57(3):133–139. https://doi.org/10.5152/tao.2019.4266

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Yung M, Tono T, Olszewska E et al (2017) EAONO/JOS joint consensus statements on the definitions, classification and staging of middle ear cholesteatoma. J IntAdvOtol 13(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2017.3363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Toom H, van der Schroeff M, Janssen J, Westzaan A, Pauw R (2020) A retrospective analysis and comparison of the STAM and STAMCO Classification and EAONO/JOS cholesteatoma staging system in predicting surgical treatment outcomes of middle ear cholesteatoma. OtolNeurotol 41(4):e468–e474. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bonali M, Fermi M, Alicandri-Ciufelli M et al (2020) Correlation of radiologic versus endoscopic visualization of the middle ear: implications for endoscopic ear surgery. OtolNeurotol 41(9):e1122–e1127. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Anschuetz L, Bonali M, Guarino P, et al (2018) Management of bleeding in exclusive endoscopic ear surgery: pilot clinical experience. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. Published online September 5, 2017:019459981772698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817726982

  16. Ferri G, Fermi M, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Villari D, Presutti L (2019) Management of jugular bulb injuries during endoscopic ear surgery: our experience. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. Published online January 21, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677679

  17. Marchioni D, Rubini A, Gazzini L et al (2018) Complications in endoscopic ear surgery. OtolNeurotol 39(8):1012–1017. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chiao W, Chieffe D, Fina M (2021) Endoscopic management of primary acquired cholesteatoma. OtolaryngolClin North Am 54(1):129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2020.09.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Botti C, Fermi M, Amorosa L, et al (2019) Cochlear function after type-1 tympanoplasty: endoscopic versus microscopic approach, a comparative study. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. Published online October 25, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05706-z

Download references

Funding

No funding is reported for the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department, University Hospital of Modena, Largo del Pozzo 71, 41100, Modena, Italy

    Matteo Fermi, Claudio Melchiorri, Marco Bonali & Livio Presutti

  2. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department, IRCCS Policlinico Sant’Orsola Malpighi, Via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy

    Matteo Fermi & Livio Presutti

  3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Till Siggemann, Marco Caversaccio & Lukas Anschuetz

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Laura Niederhauser

Authors
  1. Matteo Fermi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Till Siggemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudio Melchiorri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco Bonali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Niederhauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Caversaccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Livio Presutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lukas Anschuetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Melchiorri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fermi, M., Siggemann, T., Melchiorri, C. et al. Revision canal-wall down surgery: comparison of surgical outcomes with three different techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279, 1731–1739 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06829-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06829-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation