Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32761272›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2021

The bony obliteration tympanoplasty in cholesteatoma: safety, hygiene and hearing outcome: allograft versus autograft tympanic membrane reconstruction.

Huibert F van Waegeningh, Joost J S van Dinther, Robby Vanspauwen, Andrzej Zarowski, Erwin Offeciers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. A retrospective analysis of hearing after cholesteatoma surgery: the bony obliteration tympanoplasty versus canal wall up and canal wall down without mastoid obliteration.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Huibert F van Waegeningh *European Institute for ORL-HNS, GZA Hospitals Antwerp, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium. huibvanwaegeningh@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3725-463X
Joost J S van Dinther *European Institute for ORL-HNS, GZA Hospitals Antwerp, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Robby VanspauwenEuropean Institute for ORL-HNS, GZA Hospitals Antwerp, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Andrzej ZarowskiEuropean Institute for ORL-HNS, GZA Hospitals Antwerp, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Erwin OffeciersEuropean Institute for ORL-HNS, GZA Hospitals Antwerp, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate early results on hygiene, safety and functional outcome in a population undergoing a canal wall up technique with bony obliteration of the mastoid and epitympanic space (CWU-BOT) for extensive cholesteatoma, performed by a single surgeon. This study compares different techniques of tympanic membrane reconstruction, viz. allografts and autografts. PATIENTS: A consecutive series of 61 ears with acquired cholesteatoma treated with primary or revision CWU-BOT surgery from 2009 to 2014.

interventionObliteration was performed by the use of cortical bone-chips and bone pâté. Patients were followed up with micro-otoscopy and MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging. Ossicular reconstruction was performed using a remodelled autologous or allogenic incus or malleus.

main outcome measuresResidual and recurrence rate and short- and mid-term hearing outcome prior to any revision tympanoplasty were analysed, the effect of type of tympanic membrane reconstruction was considered.

results44 Ears were primary cholesteatoma cases, 17 cases were referred for revision surgery. Mean postoperative follow up was 45 months (SD 18.08) and mean follow-up until the last non-EP DW MRI 42 months (SD 17.72). Recurrent disease was present in 3%, no residual disease was present. An AC gain was seen in 75% of all ears undergoing ossicular reconstruction.

conclusionReproducible safety, hygiene and hearing results with limited recurrence and residual disease can be obtained by younger otologic surgeons performing the BOT-CWU for extensive cholesteatoma while using a variety of grafts for tympano-ossicular reconstruction. The tympano-ossicular allograft nevertheless shows superior hearing results when a mobile intact stapes is present. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Indexed as

Cholesteatoma, Middle EarTympanoplastyAllograftsAutograftsHearingHumansHygieneMastoidNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeTympanic MembraneCholesteatomaEarMastoidMiddleObliterationSurgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.