Skip to main content
Log in

Open and closed cavity mastoid operations: comparing early hearing results

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study is to compare audiological results in patients treated surgically with either an open or closed cavity mastoidectomy. A prospective review of a single surgeon’s case series based at two district general hospitals. All patients with 1-year post-operative hearing results following an open or closed cavity mastoid surgery were included. Outcome measured included the preoperative and postoperative air-bone gap (ABG). Belfast rule of thumb was used to assess the benefit from middle ear surgery. A total of 128 patients were identified from the database with 1 year post-operative hearing results. Sixty-three patients had undergone an open cavity mastoidectomy and 65 had a closed cavity mastoidectomy. The mean post-operative ABG in patients with open cavity mastoidectomy was 24 dB and for closed cavity 21 dB (p = 0.12). There was no statistical difference between open and closed cavity mastoidectomy with or without ossiculoplasty and if the underlying pathology was squamous or mucosal disease. However, patient with post-operative ABG below or equal to 20 dB was 41% for closed cavity compared to 21% for open cavity. Using the Belfast rule of thumb, 79% of the patients in both groups had successful hearing results post surgery. The 1-year post-operative audiological results between open and closed cavity masoidectomy showed no statistical difference. The pathology affecting the middle ear also had no influence on the hearing results between the two groups. However, there was a higher percentage of patients with closed cavity procedures who had a post-operative ABG that was below or equal to 20 dB.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Foer B, Vercruysse JP, Bernaerts A, Meersschaert J, Kenis C, Pouillon M, De Beuckeleer L, Michiels J, Bogaerts K, Deckers F, Somers T, Hermans R, Offeciers E, Casselman JW (2010) Middle ear cholesteatoma: non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR imaging versus delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging–value in detection. Radiology 255:866–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwartz KM, Lane JI, Neff BA, Bolster BD Jr, Driscoll CL, Beatty CW (2010) Diffusion-weighted imaging for cholesteatoma evaluation. Ear Nose Throat J 89:E14–E19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chanda NK, Jardine A, Owens D, Gillett S, Robinson PJ, Maw AR (2006) A multivariate analysis of the factors predicting hearing outcome after surgery for cholesteatoma in children. JLO 120:1748–5460

    Google Scholar 

  4. Khalil HS, Windle-Taylor PC (2003) Canal wall down mastoidectomy: a long commitment to the outpatient. BMC Ear Nose Throat J 3:6815

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gleeson M, Browning GG, Burton MJ, Clarke R, Hibbert J, Jones NS et al (2008) Belfast Rule of Thumb. Scott-Brown’s Otolaryngolgoy, Head and Neck Surgery, 7th edn. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Godinho RA, Kamil SH, Lubianca JN, Keogh IJ, Eavey RD (2005) Pediatric cholesteatoma: canal wall window alternative to canal wall down mastoidectomy. Otol Neurotol 26:1531–7129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vartiainen E (2000) Ten-year results of canal wall down mastoidectomy for acquired cholesteatoma. Auris, Nasus, Larynx 27:227–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Haginomori S, Takamaki A, Nonaka R, Mineharu A, Kanazawa A, Takenaka H (2009) Postoperative aeration in the middle ear and hearing outcome after canal wall down tympanoplasty with soft-wall reconstruction for cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 30:478–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kos MI, Castrillon R, Montandon P, Guyot JP (2004) Anatomic and functional long-term results of canal wall-down mastoidectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 113:872–876

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lino Y, Nagamine H, Sasaki Y, Kodera K (2001) Hearing results of canal wall reconstruction tympanoplasty for middle ear cholesteatoma in children. Int J Pediatr Otolaryngol 60:5876–5879

    Google Scholar 

  11. Corso ED, Marchese MR, Sergi B, Rigante M, Paludetti (2007) Role of ossiculolasty in canal wall down tympanolplasty for middle ear cholesteatoma: hearing results. JLO 121:324–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Della Santina CC (2006) Ceravital reconstruction of canal wall down mastoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:617–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stankovic MD (2008) Audiological results of surgery for cholesteatoma; short and long term follow-up of influential factors. Otol Neurotol 29:933–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Galm.

Additional information

V. Raut: Deceased

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galm, T., Martin, T.P.C. & Raut, V. Open and closed cavity mastoid operations: comparing early hearing results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270, 77–80 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1914-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1914-2

Keywords

Navigation