Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Modified Radical Mastoidectomy: A Relook at the Surgical Pitfalls

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The primary aim of surgery for cholesteatoma is to eliminate the disease, to produce a safe and dry ear which is self cleansing, modify the anatomy of the tympanomastoid compartment so as to prevent recurrent disease and wherever possible to reconstruct the hearing mechanism. The advances in medical technology and the medical expertise gained over a period of time have greatly influenced the results in cholesteatoma surgery. The aim of the present study was to assess the intraoperative findings during revision mastoid surgery for atticoantral disease and to ascertain the preventable factor that could reduce recurrence. A retrospective analysis of all clinical data and operative notes of patients who had undergone revision surgery for recurrent cholesteatoma, in our unit in a tertiary care centre in south India over a period of 3 years from July 2007 to July 2010 was done. 33 patients had undergone revision mastoid surgery for cholesteatoma. Most patients presented with symptoms and sign of disease about 2 years after the first surgery. The commonest complaint was recurrent foul smelling ear discharge. The most frequent site of recurrent cholesteatoma was the tip cells (72%) and the most important cause for failure of surgery with recurrence of disease was inadequate meatoplasty (70%). In our study, recurrent disease was likely due to cholesteatoma in the tip cells left uncleared and inadequate meatoplasty. Both these issues reflect faulty techniques in performing good meatoplasty or the tip cell are not adequately reduced into the external auditory canal. Bone work is generally taught well in all temporal bone workshops but no emphasis is laid on soft tissue work hence the failure and recurrence. Thus we emphasize the need to teach the budding otologists the importance of and proper technique of meatoplasty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sadoghi M, Dabirmoghaddam P (2007) Intraoperative findings in revision mastoid surgery. Acta Med Iran 45(5):373–376

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nadol JB Jr (1985) Causes of failure of mastoidectomy for chronic otitis media. Laryngoscope 95:410–413

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Megerian CA, Cosenza MJ, Meyer SE (2002) Revision tympanomastoid surgery. Ear Nose Throat J 81:718–720, 722, 725–726

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sheehy JL (1978) Recurrent and residual disease in cholesteatoma surgery. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 3(4):393–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Farrior JB, Farrior KA (1985) Recurrent & residual cholesteatoma. Am J Otol 6:13–18

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Toner JG, Smyth GDL (1990) Surgical treatment of cholesteatoma: a comparison of three techniques. Am J Otol 11(4):247–249

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Veldman JE, Braunius WW (1998) Revision surgery for chronic otitis media: a learning experience. Report on 389 cases with a long-term follow-up. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 107:486–491

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhatia S, Karmarkar S, DeDonato G, Mutlu C, Taibah A, Russo A et al (1995) Canal wall down mastoidectomy: causes of failure; pitfalls and their management. J Laryngol Otol 109:583–589

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Prasanna Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prasanna Kumar, S., Ravikumar, A. & Somu, L. Modified Radical Mastoidectomy: A Relook at the Surgical Pitfalls. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 65 (Suppl 3), 548–552 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-011-0466-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-011-0466-5

Keywords

Navigation