Abstract
Objective
Aim of this study is evaluation of course of improvement of surgically treated cases of chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) with cholesteatoma; it includes hearing status, condition of mastoid cavity, study of different, natural and surgical condition and recurrence of disease within the study period.
Design
It is a prospective study.
Settings
This study was conducted in a premiere government hospital in Kolkata between May 2007 to April 2008.
Patients
Total 40 patients between age group of 6–70 years were included in the present study which includes 19 males and 21 females.
Intervention
Surgical interventions were done in all the cases. Different types of mastoidectomy with or without tympanoplasty was done according to extent of disease process.
Outcome
Audiometrically documentable hearing improvement occurred in 35% cases (p = 14), in rest of the ears hearing status remained unaltered. At the end of 6 months follow up 92.5% (p = 14) in rest (p = 37) operated ears become completely dry. Five percent cases (p = 2) presented with facial paralysis; among them one patient improved completely and another patient improved from grade V to grade III facial paralysis. No patient developed any post operative intracranial complications and recurrence of cholesteatema not found in 6 months follow up. Meatal stenosis developed in 5% cases (p = 2) at the end of 6 months.
Conclusion
Surgery is mainstay of treatment in CSOM with cholesteatoma. Eradication of disease, prevention of complication, maintenance and restoration of hearing, and giving the patient a non-discharging ear are main aim of treatment.
Keywords: Cholesteatoma, Chronic suppurative otitis media
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (457.6 KB).
References
- 1.ALb U., Babighian G., Trabatin F. Prognostic factor in tympanoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol. 1998;19(2):136–140. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0709(98)90111-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Brackmann D.E. Porous polythene prosthesis in middle ear reconstruction — continuing experience. Am Otol. 1986;9(5):76–77. doi: 10.1177/000348948609500116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Charles C., Samtina S. c. l. Reconstruction of canal wall down mastoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol and Head-Neck Surg. 2006;132:617–623. doi: 10.1001/archotol.132.6.617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Garap J.P., Dubey S.P. Canal wall down mastoidectory-experience in 81 cases. J Otoz Neurotol. 2001;22(4):451–456. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200107000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ikeda M., Yoshida S., Yamauchi Y., IKui A., Shighiharas Evalution of canal wall down manstoidectory with canal reconstruction for draining ear with middle ear cholesteatoma. Nippon J. 2001;104(8):805–814. doi: 10.3950/jibiinkoka.104.805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kennedy K, Vrabec J, Francis B (1999) Cholesteatoma-Pathogenesis and surgical management. Otolaryngol
- 7.Shea M.C., Glasscock M.E. Tragal cartilage as an ossicular substitute. Arch Otolaryngol. 1967;86:308–317. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1967.00760050310013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]