Accuracy of High-Resolution Computed Tomography Compared to High-Definition Ear Endoscopy to Assess Cholesteatoma Extension.
Options
BORIS DOI
Date of Publication
November 2023
Publication Type
Article
Division/Institute
Contributor
Hakim, Arsany | Universitätsinstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Neuroradiologie (DIN) |
Caversaccio, Marco | |
Wagner, Franca | Universitätsinstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Neuroradiologie (DIN) |
Subject(s)
Series
Otolaryngology - head and neck surgery
ISSN or ISBN (if monograph)
1097-6817
Publisher
Wiley
Language
English
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
37418100
Uncontrolled Keywords
Description
OBJECTIVE
To correlate radiographic evidence of cholesteatoma in the retrotympanum with intraoperative endoscopic findings in cholesteatoma patients and to evaluate the clinical relevance of radiographic evidence of cholesteatoma in the retrotympanum.
STUDY DESIGN
Case series with chart review.
SETTING
Tertiary referral center.
METHODS
Seventy-six consecutive cases undergoing surgical cholesteatoma removal with preoperative high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) were enrolled in this study. A retrospective analysis of the medical records was conducted. The extension of cholesteatoma regarding different middle ear subspaces, into the antrum and mastoid were reviewed radiologically in preoperative HRCT and endoscopically from surgical videos. Additionally, facial nerve canal dehiscence, infiltration of the middle cranial fossa, and inner ear involvement were documented.
RESULTS
Comparison of radiological and endoscopic cholesteatoma extension revealed statistically highly significant overestimation of radiological cholesteatoma extension for all retrotympanic regions (sinus tympani 61.8% vs 19.7%, facial recess 69.7% vs 43.4%, subtympanic sinus 59.2% vs 7.9%, and posterior sinus 72.4% vs 4.0%) and statistically significant overestimation for mesotympanum (82.9% vs 56.6%), hypotympanum (39.5% vs 9.2%), and protympanum (23.7% vs 6.6%). No statistically significant differences were found for epitympanum (98.7% vs 90.8%), antrum (64.5% vs 52.6%), and mastoid (26.3% vs 32.9%). Statistically significant radiological overestimation of facial nerve canal dehiscence (54.0% vs 25.0%) and invasion of tegmen tympani (39.5% vs 19.7%) is reported.
CONCLUSION
Radiologic cholesteatoma extension in different middle ear subspaces is overestimated compared to the intraoperative extension. The preoperative relevance of radiological retrotympanic extension might be limited in the choice of approach and transcanal endoscopic approach is always recommended first.
To correlate radiographic evidence of cholesteatoma in the retrotympanum with intraoperative endoscopic findings in cholesteatoma patients and to evaluate the clinical relevance of radiographic evidence of cholesteatoma in the retrotympanum.
STUDY DESIGN
Case series with chart review.
SETTING
Tertiary referral center.
METHODS
Seventy-six consecutive cases undergoing surgical cholesteatoma removal with preoperative high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) were enrolled in this study. A retrospective analysis of the medical records was conducted. The extension of cholesteatoma regarding different middle ear subspaces, into the antrum and mastoid were reviewed radiologically in preoperative HRCT and endoscopically from surgical videos. Additionally, facial nerve canal dehiscence, infiltration of the middle cranial fossa, and inner ear involvement were documented.
RESULTS
Comparison of radiological and endoscopic cholesteatoma extension revealed statistically highly significant overestimation of radiological cholesteatoma extension for all retrotympanic regions (sinus tympani 61.8% vs 19.7%, facial recess 69.7% vs 43.4%, subtympanic sinus 59.2% vs 7.9%, and posterior sinus 72.4% vs 4.0%) and statistically significant overestimation for mesotympanum (82.9% vs 56.6%), hypotympanum (39.5% vs 9.2%), and protympanum (23.7% vs 6.6%). No statistically significant differences were found for epitympanum (98.7% vs 90.8%), antrum (64.5% vs 52.6%), and mastoid (26.3% vs 32.9%). Statistically significant radiological overestimation of facial nerve canal dehiscence (54.0% vs 25.0%) and invasion of tegmen tympani (39.5% vs 19.7%) is reported.
CONCLUSION
Radiologic cholesteatoma extension in different middle ear subspaces is overestimated compared to the intraoperative extension. The preoperative relevance of radiological retrotympanic extension might be limited in the choice of approach and transcanal endoscopic approach is always recommended first.
File(s)
| File | File Type | Format | Size | License | Publisher/Copright statement | Content | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otolaryngol_--head_neck_surg_-_2023_-_Beckmann_-_Accuracy_of_High_Resolution_Computed_Tomography_Compared_to.pdf | text | Adobe PDF | 883.01 KB | published |