Modified Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy Without Meatoplasty

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.

Revision surgery for chronically discharging mastoid cavities: mastoid obliteration with canal wall reconstruction versus non-obliteration surgery

Purpose To evaluate the surgical results of revision canal wall down (CWD) surgery for chronically discharging mastoid cavities and to compare the non-obliteration approach to mastoid obliteration with canal wall reconstruction. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study. All adult patients (≥ 18 years) who underwent revision surgery for chronically draining mastoid cavities between January 2013 and January 2020 were included. Primary outcome measures included the dry ear rate, complications and postoperative hearing. Results 79 ears were included; 56 ears received revision CWD with mastoid obliteration and posterior canal wall reconstruction and 23 ears received CWD without mastoid obliteration. The dry ear rate at the most recent outpatient clinic visit (median 28.0 months postoperative) was significantly higher in the obliteration group with 96.4% compared to 73.9% for the non-obliteration group (p = .002). There were no differences in audiological outcome and incidence of complications between the two techniques. Conclusion We show that in our study population revision CWD surgery with mastoid obliteration and posterior canal wall reconstruction is superior to revision CWD surgery without mastoid obliteration in the management of chronically discharging mastoid cavities. In the obliteration group, a dry ear was achieved in 96.4% as this was 73.9% in the non-obliteration group. We found no differences in audiological outcome and in incidence of complications between the two techniques.

Mastoid Obliteration Using Bioactive Glass—Our Experience

Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcome of cavity obliteration with bioactive glass in patients with cholesteatoma undergoing canal wall down mastoidectomy with reconstruction of the canal wall. Materials and Methods A prospective study was conducted over a period of 3 years on 25 patients who underwent mastoid obliteration with bioactive glass following canal wall down mastoidectomy for cholesteatoma. The primary outcome measure was the presence of a dry, low-maintenance mastoid cavity that was free of infection, assessed, and graded according to the grading system by Merchant et al at the end of 1 and 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included presence of postoperative complications like wound infection, posterior canal wall bulge, and residual perforation. Results Out of the 25 patients on whom this study was conducted, at the end of 1 month 60% had a completely dry ear, 28% of patients had grade 1, and 12% had grade 2 otorrhea at the end of the first month. At the end of 6 months, 72% had a completely dry ear, while 20% had grade 1 and 8% had grade 2 otorrhea. There were no cases with grade 3 otorrhea during the entire follow-up period. Postoperative complications of the posterior canal bulge were noted in two patients (8%), and one patient (4%) had a residual perforation. Conclusion Mastoid cavity obliteration with bioactive glass is an effective technique to avoid cavity problems.

Cholesteatoma Causing a Horizontal Semicircular Canal Fistula

Horizontal canal fistulas are not uncommon in patients with cholesteatoma. Patients with canal wall down cavities and exposed horizontal canal fistulas develop significant dizziness with wind or suction exposure. Obliteration of mastoid cavities in patients with exposed fistulas can be challenging. We describe a patient with horizontal canal fistula and chronic dizziness from wind exposure who underwent successful mastoid cavity obliteration with preservation of hearing. Patients with horizontal canal fistulas in a canal wall down cavity can be managed with mastoid obliteration for relief of dizziness.

Mastoid cavity obliteration using bone pâté versus bioactive glass granules in the management of chronic otitis media (squamous disease): a prospective comparative study

Objective To compare the efficacy of bone pâté versus bioactive glass in mastoid obliteration. Method This randomised parallel groups study was conducted at a tertiary care centre between September 2017 and August 2019. Sixty-eight patients, 33 males and 35 females, aged 12–56 years, randomly underwent single-stage canal wall down mastoidectomy with mastoid obliteration using either bone pâté (n = 35) or bioactive glass (n = 33), and were evaluated 12 months after the operation. Results A dry epithelised cavity (Merchant's grade 0 or 1) was achieved in 65 patients (95.59 per cent). Three patients (4.41 per cent) showed recidivism. The mean air–bone gap decreased to 16.80 ± 4.23 dB from 35.10 ± 5.21 dB pre-operatively. The mean Glasgow Benefit Inventory score was 30.02 ± 8.23. There was no significant difference between the two groups in these outcomes. However, the duration of surgery was shorter in the bioactive glass group (156.87 ± 7.83 vs 162.28 ± 8.74 minutes; p = 0.01). Conclusion The efficacy of both materials was comparable.

Implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 after Mastoid Obliteration with S53P4 Bioactive Glass: A Safe Method of Treating Difficult Anatomical Conditions-Preliminary Results

This study presents the preliminary results of a new otosurgical method in patients after canal wall down (CWD) surgery; it involves the implantation of the Bonebridge BCI 602 implant after obliteration of the mastoid cavity with S53P4 bioactive glass. The study involved eight adult patients who had a history of chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma in one or both ears and who had had prior radical surgery. The mean follow-up period was 12 months, with routine follow-up visits according to the schedule. The analysis had two aspects: a surgical aspect in terms of healing, development of bacterial flora, the impact on the inner ear or labyrinth, recurrence of cholesteatoma, and possible postoperative complications (firstly, after obliteration of the mastoid cavity with S53P4 bioactive glass, then after implantation). The second was an audiological aspect which assessed audiometric results and the patient’s satisfaction based on questionnaires. During the follow-up period, we did not notice any serious postoperative complications. Studies demonstrated significantly improved hearing thresholds and speech recognition in quiet and noise using the Bonebridge BCI 602. Data collected after six months of use showed improved audiological thresholds and patient satisfaction. Based on the preliminary results, we believe that the proposed two-stage surgical method using bioactive glass S53P4 is a safe and effective way of implanting the Bonebridge BCI 602 in difficult anatomical conditions. This makes it possible to treat a larger group of patients with the device.

Cochlear Implantation in Chronic Otitis Media with and without Cholesteatoma: Surgical Considerations and Auditory Outcomes

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Cochlear implant (CI) surgery is a safe and standardized procedure in the presence of normal temporal bone anatomy. However, in the surgery of patients with chronic otitis media (COM), the surgeon may encounter several problems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of COM with and without cholesteatoma on surgical and auditory outcomes of CIs. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The study group consisted of 39 patients with COM who received CIs. Age- and gender-matched 38 standard CI patients served as controls. The surgical techniques and complications, pure tone audiometry (PTA) scores, speech discrimination scores (SDS), and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) questionnaire results of the groups were compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The presence of COM was associated with a higher rate of complication than controls. Staging the surgeries, presence or absence of cholesteatoma, and type of surgical technique were not associated with surgical outcomes and complications (<i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of postoperative PTA scores, SDS, and IOI-HA scores (<i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.05). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Postoperative complications like device failure and skin breakdown are increased in cases of COM compared to standard CI surgeries. However, that increase is not associated with staging the surgeries, presence or absence of cholesteatoma, and type of ear surgery performed. It is advocated to close the external ear canal and eustachian tube without mastoid obliteration in the presence of a radical mastoidectomy cavity, which will decrease the postoperative complication rates and allow for radiological follow-up with computed tomography for the possibility of cholesteatoma recurrence. The auditory benefits of CI in patients with and without COM are comparable.