ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Open cavity mastoidectomy improves audiological outcomes for cholesteatomatous chronic otitis media patients compared to closed cavity mastoidectomy.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of open cavity mastoidectomy (OCM) versus closed cavity mastoidectomy (CCM) in patients with chronic otitis media (COM). This study aimed to compare audiological outcomes of OCM and CCM in cholesteatomatous COM (CCOM) patients.
methodsClinical data were collected from 102 patients with middle ear cholesteatomas who underwent OCM or CCM for CCOM at our hospital between February 2018 and May 2022. A retrospective analysis was conducted on audiological outcomes for patients with CCOM receiving either OCM or CCM. Air conduction (AC), bone conduction (BC), and air-bone gap (ABG) were compared between the two surgical methods. Further, recurrence, complications, pathological types, and the impact of prior ossiculoplasty were analyzed both before surgery and at three months post-ossiculoplasty.
resultsNo significant differences in demographic features were observed between the OCM and CCM groups, including gender, age, complications, pathological types, and the use of ossiculoplasty. All cases presented with hearing loss and otorrhea. Both OCM and CCM significantly reduced AC, BC, and ABG thresholds, with OCM showing greater effectiveness in decreasing AC and BC thresholds compared to the CCM method. In patients with different pathological types, OCM did not result in a significantly greater reduction in AC, BC, or ABG thresholds compared to CCM. Further, there were no significant differences in hearing outcomes between OCM and CCM, regardless of whether patients underwent ossiculoplasty.
conclusionsBoth OCM and CCM are effective in improving hearing in patients with CCOM. However, OCM demonstrates superior therapeutic effects compared to CCM, particularly in terms of effectiveness, although complications and drying time should be considered.
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.