Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the EAONO/JOS, STAMCO and ChOLE cholesteatoma staging systems in the prognostic evaluation of acquired middle ear cholesteatoma in children

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

Abstract

Objective

To compare the performance of the EAONO/JOS, STAMCO, and ChOLE Cholesteatoma Staging Systems in prognostic evaluation of children acquired middle ear cholesteatoma after primary surgery and identify the other factors that could predict cholesteatoma recidivism. And the correlation between the staging and the recidivism of cholesteatoma after grouping according to operation was evaluated.

Methods

A total of 123 ears of 118 patients that underwent surgery for primary cholesteatoma from November 2008 to May 2020 were included in this retrospective study, and then classified and staged according to the EAONO/JOS, STAMCO, and ChOLE cholesteatoma staging system, respectively. Each indicator involved in the system above was analyzed separately to evaluate its prognostic value for cholesteatoma recidivism.

Results

The type of surgical procedure performed (P = 0.020) was shown to be associated with cholesteatoma recidivism. Cholesteatoma location the supratubal recess (S1) (P = 0.026, HR = 3.614, 95% CI 1.137, 7.945), and the sinus tympani (S2) (P = 0.004, HR = 4.208, 95% CI 1.574, 11.250) were shown to be significantly associated with disease recidivism. When focusing on the CWU operation group, ossicular chain status in STAMCO stage (P = 0.043) and in the ChOLE stage (P = 0.018) were significantly associated with cholesteatoma recidivism. The results had shown no association between the three stages and cholesteatoma recidivism in the CWD and endoscopic surgery groups.

Conclusions

Based on our study, the EAONO/JOS, STAMCO, and ChOLE Classifications have limited value in predicting cholesteatoma recidivism, in acquired middle ear cholesteatoma in children. Adding the pathological status of the ossicular chain may be useful for predicting the recidivism of cholesteatoma. Additional validation studies are entailed to definitively assess the clinical utility of these classifications.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuo CL, Shiao AS, Yung M, Sakagami M, Sudhoff H, Wang CH et al (2015) Updates and knowledge gaps in cholesteatoma research. Biomed Res Int 2015:854024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nevoux J, Lenoir M, Roger G, Denoyelle F, Ducou Le Pointe H, Garabédian EN (2010) Childhood cholesteatoma. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 127(4):143–150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fontes Lima A, Carvalho Moreira F, Sousa Menezes A, Esteves Costa I, Azevedo C et al (2020) Is pediatric cholesteatoma more aggressive in children than in adults? A comparative study using the EAONO/JOS classification. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 138:110170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rutkowska J, Özgirgin N, Olszewska E (2017) Cholesteatoma definition and classification: a literature review. J Int Adv Otol 13(2):266–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yung M, Tono T, Olszewska E, Yamamoto Y, Sudhoff H, Sakagami M, İncesulu A, Trabalzini F, Özgirgin N (2017) EAONO/JOS joint consensus statements on the definitions, classification and staging of middle ear cholesteatoma. J Int Adv Otol 13(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ardıç FN, Mengi E, Tümkaya F, Kara CO, Bir F (2020) Correlation between surgical outcome and stage of acquired middle ear cholesteatoma: revalidation of the EAONO/JOS staging system. J Int Adv Otol 16(1):34–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Van der Toom H, Van der Schroeff MP, Janssen J, Westzaan AM, Pauw RJ (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. Otol Neurotol 41(4):e468–e474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bächinger D, Rrahmani A, Weiss NM, Mlynski R, Huber A, Röösli C (2021) Evaluating hearing outcome, recidivism and complications in cholesteatoma surgery using the CHOLE classification system. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278(5):1365–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Merkus P, Ten Tije FA, Stam M, Tan FML, Pauw RJ (2017) Implementation of the “EAONO/JOS definitions and classification of middle ear cholesteatoma”-from STAM to STAMCO. J Int Adv Otol 13(2):272–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Linder TE, Shah S, Martha AS, Röösli C, Emmett SD (2019) Introducing the “ChOLE” classification and its comparison to the EAONO/JOS consensus classification for cholesteatoma staging. Otol Neurotol 40(1):63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shirazi MA, Muzaffar K, Leonetti JP, Marzo S (2006) Surgical treatment of pediatric cholesteatomas. Laryngoscope 116(9):1603–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ryan PJ, Patel NP (2020) Endoscopic management of pediatric cholesteatoma. J Otol 15(1):17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Morita Y, Tono T, Sakagami M, Yamamoto Y, Matsuda K, Komori M et al (2019) Nationwide survey of congenital cholesteatoma using staging and classification criteria for middle ear cholesteatoma proposed by the Japan otological society. Auris Nasus Larynx 46(3):346–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tomlin J, Chang D, McCutcheon B, Harris J (2013) Surgical technique and recurrence in cholesteatoma: a meta-analysis. Audiol Neurootol 18(3):135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nyrop M, Bonding P (1997) Extensive cholesteatoma: long-term results of three surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol 111(6):521–526

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerckhoffs KG, Kommer MB, van Strien TH, Visscher SJ, Bruijnzeel H, Smit AL, Grolman W (2016) The disease recurrence rate after the canal wall up or canal wall down technique in adults. Laryngoscope 126(4):980–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank colleagues, patients, and their families for their support for this study. And we gratefully acknowledge the financial supports by the Special Fund of the Pediatric Medical Coordinated Development Center of Beijing Hospitals Authority under project number XTYB201828, as well as the Beijing Hospitals Authority “Ascent Plan” under project number DFL20191201.

Funding

The Special Fund of the Pediatric Medical Coordinated Development Center of Beijing Hospitals Authority, No. XTYB201828 Beijing Hospitals Authority “Ascent Plan”, DFL20191201.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xiaoxu Wang and Jianlin Guo contributed equally to this paper.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Children’s Hospital, National Center for Children’s Health, Capital Medical University, 56 Nanlishi Rd, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100045, China

    Xiaoxu Wang, Wei Liu, Min Chen, Jianbo Shao, Xiao Zhang, Ning Ma, Yanhong Li & Jie Zhang

  2. Beijing Key Laboratory for Pediatric Diseases of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing, 100045, China

    Xiaoxu Wang, Wei Liu, Min Chen, Jianbo Shao, Xiao Zhang, Ning Ma, Yanhong Li & Jie Zhang

  3. Department of Radiology, Beijing Children’s Hospital, National Center for Children’s Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100045, China

    Jianlin Guo & Yun Peng

Authors
  1. Xiaoxu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jianlin Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Min Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jianbo Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ning Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yanhong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yun Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jie Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by XW, JG, WL, MC, JS, XZ, NM, and YL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by XW, and all authors commented on the subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yun Peng or Jie Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

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

Wang, X., Guo, J., Liu, W. et al. Comparison of the EAONO/JOS, STAMCO and ChOLE cholesteatoma staging systems in the prognostic evaluation of acquired middle ear cholesteatoma in children. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279, 5583–5590 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07400-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07400-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation