ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2024
Efficacy of Otoendoscopy for Residual Cholesteatoma Detection During Microscopic Chronic Ear Surgery.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Anatomical preservation and functional reconstruction in plasma-assisted dual-endoscope combined approach surgery under continuous perfusion].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2026Article
- Quality of Life Outcomes After Endoscopic Cholesteatoma Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to determine the efficacy of otoendoscopy during microscopic cholesteatoma surgery on residual cholesteatoma rates postoperatively. The medical records of patients (aged 4-90) with primary acquired cholesteatoma who underwent microscopic cholesteatoma surgery (exclusively transcanal approach or canal wall-up tympano-mastoidectomy) with subsequent otoendoscopic examination (80 ears) for intraoperative cholesteatoma residues were retrospectively reviewed. All cases with mixed microscopic/endoscopic, fully endoscopic, or fully microscopic dissection were excluded, as well as cases where a canal wall-down technique was used. After microscopic cholesteatoma removal, the otoendoscope was used to inspect the middle ear recesses for intraoperative cholesteatoma residues. The intra- and postoperative cholesteatoma residue rate were evaluated. On endoscopic examination, intraoperative cholesteatoma residues were encountered in 24 patients (30%). A total of 30 foci were detected. Most of them were found in the superior retrotympanum (15 foci). In 9 cases an antral remnant guided the surgeon to convert to a canal wall up tympanomastoidectomy. During the postoperative follow-up period, residual cholesteatoma was detected on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging in 6 patients (7.5%). Adding an otoendoscopic examination to microscopic cholesteatoma surgery reduced the postoperative cholesteatoma residues rate (odds ratio=0.16). A negative otoendoscopic examination led to a cholesteatoma residue-free follow-up period in 95% of cases(NPV=0.95). Otoendoscopy is effective in identifying intraoperative cholesteatoma residues after microscopic cholesteatoma surgery. It reduces the postoperative cholesteatoma residue rate, and a negative otoendoscopic examination increases the likelihood of a cholesteatoma residue-free follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.