• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Can Radiologic Imaging Replace Second-Look Procedures for Cholesteatoma?

by By Jerry W. Lin, MD, PhD, and John S. Oghalai, MD • July 1, 2013

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Trio Best PracticeBackground

Cholesteatoma surgery is performed to eradicate disease, create a dry and safe ear, and restore hearing. The primary concern of the surgeon is to minimize the odds of recurrent and residual cholesteatoma. Recurrent cholesteatoma is a new cholesteatoma that forms from retraction of the tympanic membrane or ear canal skin. Recurrent cholesteatoma occurs at rates of 10 to 15 percent and are usually easy to diagnose in the office setting. Residual cholesteatoma forms from microscopic or gross disease left behind by the surgeon during the primary surgery. Reported rates of residual cholesteatoma vary from 5 to 63 percent in the literature. Residual cholesteatoma is not easily diagnosed in the office setting by otomicroscopic examination as the disease is often hidden within the mastoid or middle ear cleft.

You Might Also Like

  • Cholesteatoma: Is a Second Stage Necessary?
  • Mastoid Obliteration Could Be Effective in Cholesteatoma Surgery, but More Data Are Needed
  • The Case for Second Look Procedures
  • High-Resolution CT and Diffusion-Weighted MRI Combo Improves Pediatric Cholesteatoma Detection
Explore This Issue
July 2013

Canal-wall-down procedures can reduce the odds of both recurrent and residual cholesteatoma but commit the patient to a lifetime of follow-up appointments and lifestyle restrictions. To circumvent this issue, many surgeons treat the chronic ear by means of a canal-wall-up procedure, done via a planned process of two surgeries, staged 6 to 18 months apart.

In severely diseased ears, when the mucosa is inflamed to such a degree as to threaten maintenance of a middle ear space and to obscure the certainty of complete cholesteatoma removal, the decision to stage the procedure is easy. It is presumed that a planned second-stage surgery will permit total resection of residual cholesteatoma pearls as well as achievement of a well-aerated middle ear cleft lined with healthy mucosa within which ossicular chain reconstruction (OCR) can be expected to provide a better acoustic result. In mildly diseased ears, the mucosa may appear generally healthy and the surgeon may have confidence in complete eradication of the cholesteatoma during the primary surgery. In these cases, it is an appealing option to save the patient from additional surgery by performing primary OCR with no definitive plan for a second look.

Best Practice

New MRI techniques that have improved sensitivity for residual cholesteatoma afford the surgeon more confidence when considering a single-stage surgical approach to the management of cholesteatoma. These studies, however, should not be considered conclusive because the sensitivity of MRI for a large number of patients over a long time period is not available. Given these shortcomings of the MRI experience, single-stage surgery with follow-up monitoring by imaging should presently be reserved for those patients found on initial surgery to have only mildly diseased ears from which cholesteatoma has likely been completely eradicated. Unfortunately, the evidence to date does not support more broadly applicable recommendations. Whether or not imaging is necessary or sufficient after a presumably successful procedure represents a knowledge gap that has significant clinical importance and requires a high-quality prospective randomized study to answer definitively. Read the full article in The Laryngoscope.

Pages: 1 2 | Multi-Page

Filed Under: Otology/Neurotology, Otology/Neurotology, Practice Focus, TRIO Best Practices Tagged With: Cholesteatoma, patient care, Radiologic ImagingIssue: July 2013

You Might Also Like:

  • Cholesteatoma: Is a Second Stage Necessary?
  • Mastoid Obliteration Could Be Effective in Cholesteatoma Surgery, but More Data Are Needed
  • The Case for Second Look Procedures
  • High-Resolution CT and Diffusion-Weighted MRI Combo Improves Pediatric Cholesteatoma Detection

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939