ReviewEuropean 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 Surgery2025
What can we learn from precise reporting of residual disease after various types of cholesteatoma surgery using STAM areas?
Review 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, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose1. To evaluate current reporting of residual cholesteatoma localisation. 2. To assess prevalent localisations of residual disease following various types of cholesteatoma surgery in our population.
methods1. Review of the literature on reported localisation of residual disease following cholesteatoma surgery. 2. Retrospective chart review of patients undergoing cholesteatoma surgery in a tertiary referral centre with a minimum follow-up of two years. Localisation of residual cholesteatoma was noted according to the STAM areas and compared to initial cholesteatoma. Overlapping localisations and multiple pearls were specified.
resultsOverall residual disease rate of 14.4% in 1084 surgeries was similar to the pooled data from the literature. In our population, residual disease was most prevalent in A (attic), followed by T (tympanic cavity). The risk of residual disease in M (mastoid) was low. Surgery type influenced the overall risk of residual disease per localisation, as well as the proportion of affected areas. Obliteration reduced the risk of residual disease. Of the residual pearls, 12% were found remote of initial cholesteatoma localisation.
conclusionSurgery type is a determining factor not only in residual disease rate, but also in localisation of residual disease. Both the efficacy and safety of obliteration is underlined. Standardised reporting of residuals utilising STAM areas, including specification of overlapping areas and remote residuals, will facilitate comparative research on surgical factors influencing residual disease, while providing useful insights for otologic surgeons.
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.