Reconstruction of the Posterior Canal Wall with Mastoid Obliteration after Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy.
- Author:
Chi Sung HAN
1
;
Hyun Beom KIM
;
Jong Ryul PARK
;
Eul Hyun JEONG
;
Jae Gyu OH
;
Won Yong LEE
;
Chong Ae KIM
;
Joong Ki AHN
;
Tae Woo GU
;
Myung Koo KANG
Author Information
1. Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Wallace Memorial Baptist Hospital, Busan, Korea. curesaint@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cholesteatoma;
Canal wall reconstruction;
Mastoid obliteration;
Bone chip;
Hydroxyapatite
- MeSH:
Cartilage;
Cholesteatoma;
Durapatite;
Ear, Middle;
Hand;
Hearing;
Hot Temperature;
Humans;
Mastoid;
Postoperative Complications;
Recurrence
- From:Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
2008;51(1):33-40
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There have been heated controversies over the choice of the canal wall down mastoidectomy (CWD) and canal wall up mastoidectomy (CWU), which are operational methods used to eliminate the lesion of cholesteatoma. Combining the advantages of both methods, we reconstructed the posterior canal wall with conchal cartilage plate and obliterated mastoid cavity with bone chips (group I), or hydroxyapatite mixed with bone chips (group II) since 2001. This study was designed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of posterior canal wall reconstruction with mastoid obliteration in the treatment of cholesteatoma. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: From January of 2001 to March of 2007, the posterior canal wall reconstruction with mastoid obliteration was conducted on 66 patients. There were 30 cases of cholesteatoma and 36 cases of old radical cavity. The postoperative observation period ranged from 5 to 74 months, with the average period of 34.7 months. We analyzed the postoperative complications, and hearing results of the 33 ossicular reconstruction cases. RESULTS: There was 1 case of residual cholesteatoma in the middle ear cavity, but no recurrent cholesteatoma. In most cases, reconstructed canal wall was maintained well, but partial canal wall resorption and postauricular dimpling occurred in 5 cases of group I. On the other hand, the epithelization of posterior canal wall was incomplete in 4 cases of group II. After surgery, no patients complained any cavity problems at all. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that this procedure can prevent cavity problems and reduce the recurrence of cholesteatoma with destructed canal wall.
