dc.contributor.author | Deniz, Mahmut | |
dc.contributor.author | Uslu, Celil | |
dc.contributor.author | Koldaş, Çelik | |
dc.contributor.author | Baklacı, Deniz | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-07-02T15:21:59Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-07-02T15:21:59Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Deniz, M., Uslu, C., Koldaş, Ç. ve Baklacı, D. (2015). Which technique is better for cholesteatoma surgery? B-ENT, 11(2), 109-115. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1781-782X | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/5380 | |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term surgical outcomes and recurrence rates of three surgical techniques that are commonly used for cholesteatoma. Patients and methods: The hospital records of 132 patients with primary cholesteatoma who underwent surgery between January 1996 and December 2006 were evaluated retrospectively. Twelve cases had bilateral disease, and a total of 144 ears were treated. The patients were divided into three groups according to surgical technique: modified radical mastoidectomy (MRM) (n=48 ears), radical mastoidectomy (RM) (n =42 ears), and intact canal wall mastoidectomy (ICWM) (n=54 ears). MRM and RM procedures are canal wall down (CWD) techniques, whereas the ICWM procedure is a canal wall up (CWU) technique. Postoperatively, all patients were followed up yearly for at least 6 years. The otomicroscopic features, cholesteatoma extension, surgical findings, and recurrence rates were compared in the groups. Results: Preoperative otomicroscopic examination showed attic retraction or perforation in 32% of the cases and central perforation in 11%. There was a higher cholesteatoma recurrence rate in the ICWM group than in the MRM and RM groups (p<0.05), but there was also better hearing gain in the ICWM group (p<0.05). Conclusion: There are several surgical techniques for eradicating cholesteatoma. Our study found that CWD procedures (RM, MRM) were more effective for the eradication of cholesteatoma, but hearing gain was better when a CWU technique was used. The choice of surgical technique should be individually tailored based on the pre-operative imaging and hearing examination findings. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Royal Belgian Society | en_US |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess | en_US |
dc.subject | Otitis Media | en_US |
dc.subject | Cholesteatoma | en_US |
dc.subject | Mastoidectomy | en_US |
dc.subject | Recurrence | en_US |
dc.title | Which technique is better for cholesteatoma surgery? | en_US |
dc.type | article | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | B-ENT | en_US |
dc.department | İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Ana Bilim Dalı | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 11 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | en_US |
dc.identifier.startpage | 109 | en_US |
dc.identifier.endpage | 115 | en_US |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
dc.identifier.wosquality | Q4 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusquality | Q3 | en_US |