The present protocol describes a step-by-step guide for the complete endoscopic removal of epitympanic cholesteatoma with different techniques for cholesteatoma dissection and bone removal for epitympanectomy.
Implementation of endoscopes in cholesteatoma surgery resulted in considerable changes in the management of cholesteatoma in the last two decades. Compared to the microscopic approach with an excellent but straight-line view and limited illumination, the introduction of endoscopes provides a wide-angled panoramic view. Moreover, angled lenses allow the surgeon to visualize the middle ear and its hidden recesses through a transcanal, minimally-invasive approach. The endoscope enables the surgeon to remove limited cholesteatoma of the middle ear and its recesses using an exclusive endoscopic technique by taking advantage of these benefits. This reduces the rate of residual disease and sparing external incisions and excessive temporal bone drilling as in a transmastoid approach. Since transcanal endoscopic access is mainly a one-handed technique, it implies the need for specific procedures and technical refinements. This article describes a step-by-step guide as a surgical manual for endoscopic removal of epitympanic cholesteatoma. Different techniques for cholesteatoma dissection and bone removal for epitympanectomy, including curettage and powered instruments such as drills and ultrasonic devices with their outcomes, are discussed. This may offer ear surgeons insight into technical refinements and the latest technological developments and open the horizon for different techniques.
The introduction and successive spread of endoscopic ear surgery led to considerable changes in the treatment of cholesteatoma in the past two decades. The first intraoperative use of endoscopes to prevent residual cholesteatoma was already described in 1993 by Thomassin et al.1, followed by the first description of exclusive endoscopic cholesteatoma surgery in 1997 for cases of limited cholesteatoma2. Compared to the excellent but straight-line view with limited illumination in the microscopic approach, the endoscopic approach provides a panoramic view combined with high resolution, high magnification, and the ability to use angled lenses. The technique experiences increasing interest, despite the loss of binocular vision and two-handed working possibility3. As a consequence of the one-handed technique, safe and sufficient hemostasis is required to reap the benefits of superior visualization of the endoscopic technique4,5.
Traditional microscopic approaches might require a canal wall down (CWD) technique with excessive temporal bone drilling for improved visualization and complete removal of the cholesteatoma6. A less invasive alternative for limited cholesteatoma is the canal wall up (CWU) technique, although the limited visualization is often associated with a higher rate of residual cholesteatoma7. Endoscopes were therefore incorporated as an adjunct in canal wall up surgery to reduce the residual rate of cholesteatoma after CWU surgery1,8. Proceeding from this, the transcanal exclusive endoscopic approach has emerged as a possible alternative approach in cholesteatoma surgery as a minimally invasive approach. This resulted in excellent results in limited cholesteatoma with a comparable rate of residual cholesteatoma compared to the traditional CWD technique9,10,11. Nowadays, the exclusive use of endoscopes in cholesteatoma surgery is increasingly documented in the literature, and indications for exclusive endoscopic approaches are continuously expanding12. This work presents an insight into the different technical refinements and latest technological developments for exclusive endoscopic cholesteatoma surgery.
The protocol followed the guidelines of the local institution's human research ethics committee and was approved by the local institutional review board (KEK-BE 2019-00555). All operations were performed in general anesthesia under controlled hypotension in anti-Trendelenburg positioning with standard otological instruments.
1. Preparation of the surgical site
2. Exclusive transcanal endoscopic approach
3. Middle ear exploration
4. Reconstruction of the ossicular chain and scutum
5. Wound closure
A total of 43 consecutive cases of exclusive endoscopic cholesteatoma surgery were analyzed for this study. One surgeon performed all operations; cases needing conversion to a microscopic or combined approach were excluded. Preoperative computed tomography suspected an epitympanal cholesteatoma extension in every case. The mean age (±standard deviation) at the surgery date was 37.36 years (±15.64 years). Seven cases (16.3%) were revision surgeries, thirty-six cases (83.7%) were patients undergoing first cholesteatoma removal. The left side was operated in 26 cases (60.5%), the right side in 17 cases (39.5%).
Surgical Results
All operations were completed without significant complications like facial nerve palsy or postoperative sensorineural hearing loss, as illustrated in Figure 1. Cartilage was used as grafting material in 38 cases (88.4%) and fascia in 5 cases (11.6%). The graft intake rate (GIR) was 90.7% showing 3 cases of postoperative perforations (7.3%). The mean follow-up was 17.4 months (±10 months), with 40 cases (93%) having no recurrent cholesteatoma at the last follow-up.
Audiological Results
Each patient underwent standard audiological testing before and after surgery. One patient was already deaf before surgery; thus, no hearing improvement was expected. Two more patients had no postoperative audiogram. Preoperative air bone gap (ABG) of 23.8 dB ± 12.6 dB improved significantly (paired t-test with p = 0.0005) to a postoperative ABG of 18.2 dB ± 10 dB after surgery. The detailed surgical results are presented in Table 1.
Figure 1: Overview of the essential surgical steps. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Age | 37.4 years (14-80 years) | ||
Side | 26 left side | 17 right side | |
Revision surgery | 36 primary surgery | 7 revision surgery | |
Grafting sucess | 39 successful | 3 perforations | 1 missing follow up |
Grafting material | 38 cartilage | 5 fascia | |
Recidive | 40 without recidive | 3 with recidive | |
Mean ABG | 23.8 ± 12.6 dB preoperative | 18.2 ± 10 dB postoperative |
Table 1: Detailed surgical results.
This article describes a step-by-step guide as a surgical manual for endoscopic removal of limited attic cholesteatoma. Different techniques for cholesteatoma dissection and bone removal techniques for atticotomy as curettage, bone drills, and ultrasonic devices (piezoelectric devices, ultrasonic bone curettes) are presented. However, single-handed surgery requires habituation, and particular care has to be taken to avoid damage to surrounding structures directly or indirectly during attico- and antrotomy with powered instruments.
Since the first description of exclusive endoscopic cholesteatoma surgery for limited cholesteatoma by Tarabichi in 19972, several studies have been published reporting its successful application in cases of limited attic cholesteatoma. Tarabichi presented in 2004 a cohort of 73 procedures in 69 patients, who all received transcanal exclusive endoscopic cholesteatoma removal, showing 5 cases of recurrence in a mean follow-up period of 43 months9. In 2008, Barakate and Botrill presented 68 procedures of endoscopic cholesteatoma surgery in 66 cases, all of them receiving a second look procedure within a mean of 16 months16. In the second look procedure, 10 ears revealed residual disease, and 4 ears presented a recurrence. Migirov et al. demonstrated no residual disease in 18 patients after exclusive endoscopic cholesteatoma eradication after more than 1 year10. In 2013 Marchioni et al. reported on 146 patients with attic cholesteatoma and 120 patients undergoing an exclusive endoscopic approach; 26 patients underwent an endoscopic procedure combined with mastoidectomy11. Thereof, 7 patients presented with residual cholesteatoma, with no case having limited attic cholesteatoma in the beginning. Thus, the residual and recurrent cholesteatoma rate of 6.4% after endoscopic assisted or exclusive endoscopic removal seems to be comparable to the rate after most CWD procedures with 0%-13.2%, while using a minimally invasive approach7,17. In addition, direct comparison of endoscopic with microscopic techniques revealed significantly better middle ear structural visibility, reduced pain scores, and faster wound healing as further advantages of an endoscopic minimally-invasive approach8,18. Thus, the endoscopic approach seems to be particularly suitable for limited attic cholesteatoma.
Nevertheless, the inaccessibility of cholesteatoma extending deep into the mastoid remains one of the limiting factors in the success of the transcanal exclusive endoscopic approach. Despite the use of angled optics, complete endoscopic explorability is not always feasible, especially in the case of more excavated retrotympanal regions20.
Extended atticotomy was mainly performed by curettes or bone drilling until recently. To avoid the rough and time-consuming bone removal with curettes and possible facial nerve or tympanomeatal flap injury caused by drills, ultrasonic devices may provide a safe and precise alternative in cholesteatoma surgery21. With the transcanal endoscopic retrograde mastoidectomy technique, even removing cholesteatoma extensions into the antrum in a sclerotic mastoid can be achieved by an exclusive endoscopic transcanal approach22,23. However, extensive cholesteatoma formation inside the mastoid or severe hemorrhage might require switching to a microscopic retroauricular approach.
Additionally, there are also recent developments described in the literature to reduce the residual rate of cholesteatoma with chemically or physically assisted dissections. Mesna (sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate) is reported as a possible chemical agent to reduce the residual rate of cholesteatoma by breaking disulfide bridges between different tissues24,25. For physically assisted dissection, different types of lasers known from stapes mobilization procedures have also been used in cholesteatoma surgery, resulting in a low recurrence rate around the ossicular chain26. In addition to white light endoscopy, other image processing technologies based on spectral separation may further improve cholesteatoma removal by recognizing residual cholesteatoma in the final overview27.
Therefore, applying endoscopic cholesteatoma surgery with improved technical devices and chemically or physically assisted dissection is promising to further evolve the minimally invasive approach and reduce the residual disease rate.
Not applicable.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Antifog Solution | Karl Storz | N/A | |
Epinephrine 1 mg/mL | Dr. Bichsel AG | N/A | |
Gelatinous sponge (Gelfoam) | Pfizer | N/A | |
HOPKINS Optic 0° | Karl Storz | 7220AA | |
HOPKINS Optic 30° | Karl Storz | 7220BA | |
HOPKINS Optic 45° | Karl Storz | 7220FA | |
HOPKINS Optic 70° | Karl Storz | 7220CA | |
Image 1S 4K | Karl Storz | TH120 | |
ME 102 | KLS Martin | N/A | |
Monitor 32" 4K/3D | Karl Storz | TM350 | |
NIM-Neuro 3.0 | Medtronic | N/A | |
OsseoDuo | Bien Air | N/A | |
Otosporin (polymyxin, neomycin, hydrocortison) | GlaxoSmithKline | N/A | |
Piezosurgery device | Mectron | N/A | |
PM2 Line Drill | Bien Air | N/A | |
Povidone-iodine (Betadine) | Mundi-Pharma | N/A | |
Ringer Solution | B. Braun | N/A | |
Standard otological instruments | Karl Storz | N/A | |
Steel and diamand burrs | Bien Air | N/A | |
Syringe Injekt Solo 10 mL | B. Braun | N/A |
This article has been published
Video Coming Soon
ABOUT JoVE
Copyright © 2024 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved