scholarly journals Recidivous cholesteatoma: DWI MR after canal wall up and canal wall down mastoidectomy

2016 ◽  
Vol 117 (09) ◽  
pp. 515-520
Author(s):  
T. Bakaj ◽  
L. Bakaj Zbrozkova ◽  
R. Salzman ◽  
M. Tedla ◽  
I. Starek
Keyword(s):  
Canal Wall ◽  
Canal Wall Down ◽  
Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy ◽  
Canal Wall Up

Acoustic Mechanisms

1998 ◽  
Vol 118 (6) ◽  
pp. 751-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
KENNETH R. WHITTEMORE ◽  
SAUMIL N. MERCHANT ◽  
JOHN J. ROSOWSKI
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ear ◽  
Sound Transmission ◽  
Canal Wall ◽  
Air Space ◽  
Canal Wall Down ◽  
Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy ◽  
Temporal Bones ◽  
Head Neck ◽  
Canal Wall Up ◽  
Space Volume

The contribution of the middle ear air spaces to sound transmission through the middle ear in canal wall-up and canal wall-down mastoidectomy was studied in human temporal bones by measurements of middle ear input impedance and sound pressure difference across the tympanic membrane for the frequency range 50 Hz to 5 kHz. These measurements indicate that, relative to canal wall-up procedures, canal wall-down mastoidectomy results in a 1 to 5 dB decrease in middle ear sound transmission below 1 kHz, a 0 to 10 dB increase between 1 and 3 kHz, and no change above 3 kHz. These results are consistent with those reported by Gyo et al. (Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;112:1262-8), in which umbo displacement was used as a measure of sound transmission. A model analysis suggests that the reduction in sound transmission below 1 kHz can be explained by the smaller middle ear air space volume associated with the canal wall-down procedure. We conclude that as long as the middle ear air space is aerated and has a volume greater than 0.7 ml, canal wall-down mastoidectomy should generally cause less than 10 dB changes in middle ear sound transmission relative to the canal wall-up procedure. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:751-61.)

Canal wall down mastoidectomy with obliteration versus canal wall up mastoidectomy in primary cholesteatoma surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 133 (12) ◽  
pp. 1074-1078 ◽  
Author(s):  
M D Wilkie ◽  
D Chudek ◽  
C J Webb ◽  
A Panarese ◽  
G Banhegyi
Keyword(s):  
Discharge Rate ◽  
Recidivism Rate ◽  
Canal Wall ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Mastoid Obliteration ◽  
Recidivism Rates ◽  
Canal Wall Down ◽  
Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy ◽  
Canal Wall Up ◽  
Cholesteatoma Surgery

AbstractObjectiveThis study sought to compare disease recidivism rates between canal wall up mastoidectomy and a canal wall down with obliteration technique.MethodsPatients undergoing primary cholesteatoma surgery at our institution over a five-year period (2013–2017) using the aforementioned techniques were eligible for inclusion in the study. Rates of discharge and disease recidivism were analysed using chi-square statistics.ResultsA total of 104 ears (98 patients) were included. The mean follow-up period was 30 months (range, 12–52 months). A canal wall down with mastoid obliteration technique was performed in 55 cases and a canal wall up approach was performed in 49 cases. Disease recidivism rates were 7.3 per cent and 16.3 per cent in the canal wall down with mastoid obliteration and canal wall up groups respectively (p = 0.02), whilst discharge rates were similar (7.3 per cent and 10.2 per cent respectively).ConclusionOur direct comparative data suggest that canal wall down mastoidectomy with obliteration is superior to a canal wall up technique in primary cholesteatoma surgery, providing a lower recidivism rate combined with a low post-operative ear discharge rate.

scholarly journals A comparative study of hearing outcomes in canal wall up versus canal wall down mastoidectomy in our experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 472
Author(s):  
Poornima S. Bhat ◽  
G. Gandhi ◽  
K. Pradheep
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Canal Wall ◽  
Hearing Gain ◽  
Hearing Outcome ◽  
Canal Wall Down ◽  
Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Canal Wall Up

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> COM causes considerable morbidity with ear discharge, conductive hearing loss and complications. Ossicular reconstruction is a surgical procedure which intends to improve the quality of hearing and life in such patients. Comparison of the outcomes will help to determine the merits or demerits of a particular procedure.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> The study was conducted in the Department of ENT, VIMS, Bellary during the period from December 2010 to May 2012. All the patients with CSOM with ossicular erosion suggested by conductive hearing loss more than 40dB were included in the study. A detailed history taking, thorough clinical examination was done for these patients. Before and after the procedure pure tone audiometry was done to assess the hearing outcome. Post operatively PTA was done in 6<sup>th</sup> week, 3<sup>rd</sup> month, 6<sup>th</sup> month follow up. Hearing improvement was analysed according to the type of procedure. The data collected was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> This study compared the outcomes of hearing gain in canal wall up versus canal wall down mastoidectomy surgeries. Hearing gain was better in canal wall up mastoidectomy (18.36 dB) than canal wall down mastoidectomy surgeries.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Hearing outcome was better in intact canal wall mastoidectomy than canal wall down mastoidectomy in our study.</p><p class="abstract"> </p>

scholarly journals Modified Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy Without Meatoplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (12) ◽  
pp. 965-970
Author(s):  
You Young An ◽  
Jong Dae Lee
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Dead Space ◽  
Mastoid Cavity ◽  
Canal Wall ◽  
Mastoid Obliteration ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Retraction Pockets ◽  
Canal Wall Down ◽  
Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy ◽  
Canal Wall Up

It is important to decide which procedure to employ between canal wall up mastoidectomy and canal wall down mastoidectomy (CWDM) as each procedure has its own advantages and disadvantages. To combine the advantages and compensate the disadvantages of each procedure, various methods and approaches have been devised. Mastoid and epitympanic obliteration, which minimizes the dead space in the mastoid cavity, was previously known to prevent the occurrence of retraction pockets. We performed mastoid and epitympanic obliteration also to prevent the occurrence of cavity problems without meatoplasty. Here we describe the surgical procedures for modified CWDM without meatoplasty and mastoid obliteration using autologous materials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document