Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Different Techniques of Meatoplasty After Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare surgical outcomes with different meatoplasty techniques without removal of a cartilage piece in canal wall down mastoidectomy. Total 61 patients of canal wall down mastoidectomy included in the study where either inferior based flap technique or division in middle technique meatoplasty performed and 2 groups formed. Group A consisted of 33 patients and the inferior based flap technique of meatoplasty used in these patients. Group B consisted of 28 patients and the division in middle technique of meatoplasty used in these patients. Granulations, discharge or stenosis of canal were observed in less than 8% of cases in both the groups. Meatoplasty done without incision or excision of a piece of cartilage from pinna can be achieved with good success rates with either inferiorly based flap technique or division in middle technique.

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

References

  1. Yanagisawa E, Gardner G, Bolinsky DM, Weyermann D (1983) The surgical atlas of otology and neuro-otology. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  2. Portmann M (1983) “How I do it”—otology and neurotology. A specific issue and its solution. Meatoplasty and conchoplasty in cases of open technique. Laryngoscope 93(4):520–522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisch U (1980) Surgical techniques in cholesteatoma removal: results of surgery for cholesteatoma, tympanoplasty and stapedectomy. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 42–54

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fisch U, Chang P, Linder T (2002) Meatoplasty for lateral stenosis of the external auditory canal. Laryngoscope 112(7 Pt 1):1310–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Suskind DL, Bigelow CD, Knox GW (1999) Y modification of the Fisch meatoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121(1):126–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mirck PG (1996) The M-meatoplasty of the external auditory canal. Laryngoscope 106(3 Pt 1):367–369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Varadarajan VV, Antonelli PJ (2020) Efficacy of the mini-meatoplasty. Laryngoscope 130(5):1294–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hovis KL, Carlson ML, Sweeney AD, Haynes DS (2015) The one-cut meatoplasty: novel surgical technique and outcomes. Am J Otolaryngol 36(2):130–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Memari F, Maleki Delarestaghi M, Mir P, GolMohammadi M, Shams KE (2017) Meatoplasty in canal wall down surgery: our experience and literature review. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 29(90):11–17

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Choi IJ, Song JJ, Jang JH, Chang SO (2009) A novel meatoplasty method in canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy: a perichondrial posterior fixation technique. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2(4):164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tong MC, Liu KC, van Hasselt CA (1996) Sling stitch endaural meatoplasty. Laryngoscope 106(11):1438–1440. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199611000-00027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Raut VV, Rutka JA (2002) The Toronto meatoplasty: enhancing one’s results in canal wall down procedures. Laryngoscope 112(11):2093–2095

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodyear PW, Reddy CE, Lesser TH (2012) Helix advancement meatoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 126(6):612–614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors’ independent work. No grant or funds taken.

Funding

This study is author's independent work. No funds taken.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ENT, Dr MK Shah Medical College and Research Centre, Visat - Gandhinagar Highway, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382424, India

    Sohil I. Vadiya, Parth Makwana, Nisarg Mehta & Sridhar Khetani

Authors
  1. Sohil I. Vadiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Parth Makwana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nisarg Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sridhar Khetani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sohil I. Vadiya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors of this article declare that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Approval from Institutional Ethical Committee taken prior to conducting the study.

Human and Animal Rights

Animals were not involved in this study.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

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

Vadiya, S.I., Makwana, P., Mehta, N. et al. Comparison of Different Techniques of Meatoplasty After Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 74 (Suppl 1), 589–592 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-020-02312-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-020-02312-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation