» Articles » PMID: 20680639

Management of Petrous Bone Cholesteatoma: Open Versus Obliterative Techniques

Overview
Date 2010 Aug 4
PMID 20680639
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The objective of this study was to expose our results in the treatment of petrous bone cholesteatomas (PBC), paying attention to diagnosis, surgical strategy, facial management, results, and recurrences. The main objective is to compare the results of obliterative and open techniques in their management concerning the recurrence rate, due to the controversy elicited on obliterative or closed techniques in large cholesteatomas. A retrospective study was performed from July 1977 to September 2007 at the Tertiary referral cranial base center. Thirty-five patients were treated for PBC through different surgical approaches, and in 25 cases (72%) the surgical cavity was obliterated with a muscle flap. Four patients (11%) had a long-term recurrence. These patients received an open technique and after surgical re-exploration using a closed technique they had no recurrence. There were no recurrences in patients who underwent an obliterative technique and they received periodic MRI controls. The facial function after surgery was acceptable (71% of patients had House-Brackmann grades I to III). PBC is a complex pathology and presents difficulties in its diagnosis and treatment. Surgical technique should be suitable for removing the pathology and preventing damage to structures such as the facial nerve or great vessels. Obliterative techniques, where possible, are at least as safe as open cavity procedures and they have fewer postoperative complications; however, regular follow-up with CT and MRI is mandatory.

Citing Articles

Long-term facial nerve outcome in surgically treated petrous bone cholesteatoma patients.

Yilala M, Fancello G, Musumano L, Lauda L, Sanna M Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; .

PMID: 39466368 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-024-09052-7.


Petrous bone cholesteatoma: our experience of 20 years and management of two giant cases affecting rhinopharynx.

Liu Y, Wang F, Shen W, Liu J, Zhao H, Han W Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 279(6):2791-2801.

PMID: 34255147 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-06969-1.


Surgery of the lateral skull base: a 50-year endeavour.

Zanoletti E, Mazzoni A, Martini A, Abbritti R, Albertini R, Alexandre E Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2019; 39(SUPPL. 1):S1-S146.

PMID: 31130732 PMC: 6540636. DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-suppl.1-39-2019.


Computed Tomography Staging of Middle Ear Cholesteatoma.

Razek A, Ghonim M, Ashraf B Pol J Radiol. 2015; 80:328-33.

PMID: 26171086 PMC: 4485650. DOI: 10.12659/PJR.894155.

References
1.
Sanna M, Zini C, Gamoletti R, Frau N, Taibah A, Russo A . Petrous bone cholesteatoma. Skull Base Surg. 1993; 3(4):201-13. PMC: 1656454. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1060585. View

2.
House W, De La Cruz A, Hitselberger W . Surgery of the skull base: transcochlear approach to the petrous apex and clivus. Otolaryngology. 1978; 86(5):ORL-770-9. DOI: 10.1177/019459987808600522. View

3.
Omran A, De Denato G, Piccirillo E, Leone O, Sanna M . Petrous bone cholesteatoma: management and outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2006; 116(4):619-26. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000208367.03963.ca. View

4.
Moffat D, Jones S, Smith W . Petrous temporal bone cholesteatoma: a new classification and long-term surgical outcomes. Skull Base. 2008; 18(2):107-15. PMC: 2435479. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-991112. View

5.
Kojima H, Tanaka Y, Yaguchi Y, Miyazaki H, Murakami S, Moriyama H . [Petrous cholesteatoma: clinical features and surgical outcome]. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2008; 111(2):50-7. DOI: 10.3950/jibiinkoka.111.50. View