Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-w79xw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-28T10:35:55.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A volumetric three-dimensional evaluation of invasiveness of an endoscopic and microscopic approach for transmeatal visualisation of the middle ear

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2021

A H A Baazil ,
J G G Dobbe ,
E van Spronsen ,
F A Ebbens ,
F G Dikkers ,
G J Streekstra  and
M J F de Wolf
A H A Baazil
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J G G Dobbe
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E van Spronsen
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
F A Ebbens
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
F G Dikkers
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
G J Streekstra
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M J F de Wolf*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Maarten de Wolf, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam1105AZ, the Netherlands E-mail: m.j.dewolf@amsterdamumc.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the necessary scutum defect for transmeatal visualisation of middle-ear landmarks between an endoscopic and microscopic approach.

Method

Human cadaveric heads were used. In group 1, middle-ear landmarks were visualised by endoscope (group 1 endoscopic approach) and subsequently by microscope (group 1 microscopic approach following endoscopy). In group 2, landmarks were visualised solely microscopically (group 2 microscopic approach). The amount of resected bone was evaluated via computed tomography scans.

Results

In the group 1 endoscopic approach, a median of 6.84 mm3 bone was resected. No statistically significant difference (Mann–Whitney U test, p = 0.163, U = 49.000) was found between the group 1 microscopic approach following endoscopy (median 17.84 mm3) and the group 2 microscopic approach (median 20.08 mm3), so these were combined. The difference between the group 1 endoscopic approach and the group 1 microscopic approach following endoscopy plus group 2 microscopic approach (median 18.16 mm3) was statistically significant (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001, U = 18.000).

Conclusion

This study showed that endoscopic transmeatal visualisation of middle-ear landmarks preserves more of the bony scutum than a microscopic transmeatal approach.

Keywords

Ear, MiddleEndoscopesCholesteatomaEar CanalAnatomic LandmarksOtologic Surgical Procedures
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 5 , May 2021 , pp. 410 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr M de Wolf takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Hinohira, Y, Yanagihara, N, Gyo, K. Surgical treatment of retraction pocket with bone pate: scutum plasty for cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133:625–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uyar, Y, Ozturk, K, Keles, B, Arbag, H, Han Ulkü, C. Anterior atticoantrostomy for cholesteatoma surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;115:150–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacciu, A, Pasanisi, E, Vincenti, V, Di Lella F Bacciu, S. Reconstruction of outer attic wall defects using bone pate long-term clinical and histological evaluation. Eur Arch Otohinolaryngol 2006;263:983–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, PC, Gantz, BJ. Cartilage reconstruction of the scutum defects in canal wall up mastoidectomies. Am J Otolaryngol 1998;19:178–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, JM. Cholesteatoma: skin in the wrong place. J R Soc Med 1997;90:93–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfleiderer, AG, Ghosh, S, Kairinos, N, Chaudhri, F. A study of recurrence of retraction pockets after various methods of primary reconstruction of attic and mesotympanic defects in combined approach tympanoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003;28:548–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacciu, S, Pasanisi, E, Perez Raffo, G, Avendano Arambula, J, Piazza, F, Bacciu, A et al. Scutumplasty: costal cartilage versus bone pate. Auris Nasus Larynx 1998;25:155–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakai, M, Shinkawa, A, Miyake, H, Fujii, K. Reconstruction of scutum defects (scutumplasty) for attic cholesteatoma. Am J Otol 1986;7:188–92Google ScholarPubMed
Sanna, M, Zini, C, Gamoletti, R, Delogu, P, Scandellari, R, Russo, A et al. Prevention of recurrent cholesteatoma in closed tympanoplasty. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1987;96:273–5Google ScholarPubMed
Pollak, N. Endoscopic and minimally-invasive ear surgery: a path to better outcomes. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;3:129–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chittawar P, Bhave, Franik, S, Pouwer, AW, Farquhar, C. Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(10):CD004638Google Scholar
Schwenk, W, Haase, O, Neudecker, J, Müller, J. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(2):CD003145Google Scholar
Badr-el-Dine, M. Value of ear endoscopy in cholesteatoma surgery. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:631–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Meselaty, K, Badr-El-Dine, M, Mandour, M, Mourad, M, Darweesh, R. Endoscope affects decision making in cholesteatoma surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:490–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayache, S, Tramier, B, Strunski, V. Otoendoscopy in cholesteatoma surgery of the middle ear. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1085–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sajjadi, H. Endoscopic middle ear and mastoid surgery for cholesteatoma. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2013;25:63–70Google ScholarPubMed
Sarcu, D, Isaacson, G. Long-term results of endoscopically assisted pediatric cholesteatoma surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;154:535–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, W-H, Kuo, C-L, Huang, T-C. Transcanal endoscopic ear surgery for congenital cholesteatoma: a preliminary report. Arch Otorhinolaryngol Neck Surg 2017;1:233–41Google Scholar
Bennett, M, Wanna, G, Francis, D, Murfee, J, O'Connell, B, Haynes, D. Clinical and cost utility of an intraoperative endoscopic second look in cholesteatoma surgery. Laryngoscope 2018;128:2867–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, JB, Zuniga, MG, Sweeney, AD, Bertrand, NM, Wanna, GB, Haynes, DS et al. Pediatric endoscopic cholesteatoma surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;154:1121–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchioni, D, Soloperto, D, Rubini, A, Villari, D, Genovese, E, Artioli, F et al. Endoscopic exclusive transcanal approach to the tympanic cavity cholesteatoma in pediatric patients: our experience. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:316–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarabichi, M. Endoscopic management of limited attic cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1157–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plodpai, Y, Paje, N. The outcomes of overlay myringoplasty: endoscopic versus microscopic approach. Am J Otolaryngol 2017;38:542–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaya, I, Sezgin, B, Sergin, D, Ozturk, A, Eraslan, S, Gode, S et al. Endoscopic versus microscopic type 1 tympanoplasty in the same patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur Arch Otohinolaryngol 2017;274:3343–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, T-Y, Ho, K-Y, Wang, L-F, Chien, C-Y, Wang, H-M. A comparative study of endoscopic and microscopic approach type 1 tympanoplasty for simple chronic otitis media. J Int Adv Otol 2016;12:28–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, N, Mohammadi, A, Jufas, N. Direct cost comparison of totally endoscopic versus open ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2018;132:122–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tseng, C-C, Lai, M-T, Wu, C-C, Yuan, S-P, Ding, Y-F. Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic tympanoplasty versus microscopic tympanoplasty for chronic otitis media in Taiwan. J Chinese Med Assoc 2018;81:284–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, T, Nishiike, S, Oshima, K, Tanaka, H, Tsuruta, Y, Tomiyama, Y. The resected area of the posterior wall of the external auditory canal during transcanal endoscopic ear surgery for cholesteatoma. Auris Nasus Larynx 2017;44:141–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobbe, JGG, Strackee, SD, Schreurs, AW, Jonges, R, Carelsen, B, Vroemen, JC et al. Computer-assisted planning and navigation for corrective distal radius osteotomy, based on pre- and intraoperative imaging. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2011;58:182–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bae, MR, Kang, WS, Chung, JW. Comparison of the clinical results of attic cholesteatoma treatment: Endoscopic versus microscopic ear surgery. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2019;12:156–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Presutti, L, Anschuetz, L, Rubini, A, Ruberto, M, Alicandri-Ciufelli, M, Dematte, M et al. The impact of the transcanal endoscopic approach and mastoid preservation on recurrence of primary acquired attic cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:445–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magliulo, G, Iannella, G. Endoscopic versus microscopic approach in attic cholesteatoma surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 2018;39:25–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellingman, CA, Geerse, S, de Wolf, MJF, Ebbens, FA, van Spronsen, E. Canal wall up surgery with mastoid and epitympanic obliteration in acquired cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope 2018;129:981–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed