• 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
    • Technology
    • AI
    • History of Otolaryngology
  • 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
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

The Great Debate: Canal-wall-up vs. canal-wall-down surgery for pediatric cholesteatomas

by Cornelia T. Kean • May 2, 2010

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

Dr. Harris said that after many years of doing CWU surgery, he realized that about 40 percent of his patients showed signs of having recurrent cholesteatomas at the time of their second-look procedures. Those lesions, he stressed, “were not recurrent disease based on my leaving some of the cholesteatoma behind; this was what we call ‘recidivistic’ disease, a new cholesteatoma, because the ear, especially in kids, simply could not maintain normal middle ear pressure. Once that negative pressure develops, the eardrum gets sucked in, and when it does, that’s my clue to take the canal wall down and stop the disease process.”

You Might Also Like

  • Mastoid Obliteration Could Be Effective in Cholesteatoma Surgery, but More Data Are Needed
  • Canal Wall Up vs. Canal Wall Down: Symptom of a greater need?
  • Cholesteatoma: Is a Second Stage Necessary?
  • T1W Imaging May Aid in Diagnosing Cholesteatomas
Explore This Issue
May 2010

If negative pressure is observed during the healing phase, Dr. Harris added, “it is worth placing a ventilation tube in the ear, because on occasion the tube can prevent recurrence of these epitympanic retractions.”

Sound Off

What approach to pediatric cholesteatomas do you prefer? Take our poll or send your thoughts to enttoday@wiley.com.

A Historical Reversal

Dr. Harris said there is nothing unique about his negative experiences with traditional CWU surgery. He pointed to Gordon Smyth, MD, from Belfast, who was initially a staunch advocate of leaving the canal wall intact. Dr. Harris noted that Dr. Smyth was influenced, as were many other surgeons of the day, by the House Clinic’s James L. Sheehy, MD, an ENT surgeon at the House Clinic in Los Angeles, who championed the CWU approach in the 1970s and 1980s. “Dr. Smyth performed canal wall ups in most of his patients for at least five years, maybe longer,” he said. “Then he reviewed his long-term results and wrote a paper in which he stated that this operation resulted in a much higher than acceptable recurrence rate for cholesteatoma; he was seeing up to 50 percent of his patients having to go back for more surgery” (Laryngoscope. 1985;95(1):92-96).

Based on those types of experiences, “most surgeons would agree that the holy grail of maintaining a canal-wall-up approach, no matter what, to all comers, really makes no sense today,” Dr. Harris said. “The pendulum has swung back to what had been the gold standard: canal wall down.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Filed Under: Departments, Medical Education, Otology/Neurotology, Pediatric, Practice Focus Tagged With: cholesteatomas, debate, Otology, pediatrics, surgery, techniquesIssue: May 2010

You Might Also Like:

  • Mastoid Obliteration Could Be Effective in Cholesteatoma Surgery, but More Data Are Needed
  • Canal Wall Up vs. Canal Wall Down: Symptom of a greater need?
  • Cholesteatoma: Is a Second Stage Necessary?
  • T1W Imaging May Aid in Diagnosing Cholesteatomas

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

Have you participated in any leadership training to further your career?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board: Deadline Extended
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • Taking Otolaryngology Call in the ED and Hospital: Duty or Burden?
    • Houston, We Have a Problem
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • History of the Cochlear Implant
    • 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
    • Otolaryngology Hospitalists: A Relatively New Role
    • Feeling the Squeeze
    • Patient and Procedural Predictors of Early Recovery Quality after Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery
    • What’s New Versus Tried and True in Pulsatile Tinnitus
    • The Impact of Chronic Particulate Matter Exposure on Quality-of-Life Outcomes after ESS

Follow Us

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

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 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