Exploring Trends and Developments in Cholesteatoma Research: a Bibliometric Analysis

Overview

Journal Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2024 May 29

PMID 38809268

Authors

Burak Numan Ugurlu

Gulay Aktar Ugurlu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Examination of the scientific literature on cholesteatoma from past to present using bibliometric methods.

Methods: A total of 2353 articles on cholesteatoma between 1980 and 2023 were obtained from the Web of Science database and statistically analysed using bibliometric techniques.

Results: The journals with the highest number of contributions to the literature were Otology & Neurotology (n = 192), Acta Oto-Laryngologica (156) and Laryngoscope (149). The most impactful journals based on h-index and total citation (TC) counts were Laryngoscope (h:36, TC: 4241), Otology & Neurotology (29, 3141), and American Journal of Otology (26, 2071) respectively. The most prolific author was Kojima H. (n = 49). According to the findings of the Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) analysis, there has been a significant increase in academic interest in Cholesteatoma since its first description in 1959, particularly following the expansion of its definition in 1977. Subsequently, the trend of increased interest has risen rapidly in later years, with notable peaks in research intensity observed in 1989, 2006, and 2011. The highest academic trend occurred in 2006. In recent years, trending topics have included innovative approaches such as diagnostic and imaging methods particularly alongside technological developments, endoscopic surgery, recurrence and complications, prognosis and quality of life, artificial intelligence, and obliteration.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the evolution of cholesteatoma and its research priorities reveal temporal shifts and emerging areas of interest over time. Primarily, diagnosis, treatment, and surgical approaches remain central. Additionally, research has expanded to encompass developments in surgical techniques, imaging modalities, cellular biology, pathology, and molecular mechanisms.

Citing Articles

Artificial intelligence in otorhinolaryngology: current trends and application areas.

Demir E, Ugurlu B, Ugurlu G, Aydogdu G Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025; .

PMID: 40019544 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-025-09272-5.

Current trends in pain management: A bibliometric analysis for the 1980-to-2023 period.

Demir E, Dogan G, Kiraz M, Akdagli Ekici A, Kayir S, Ekici M Medicine (Baltimore). 2025; 104(3):e41319.

PMID: 39833073 PMC: 11749605. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000041319.

Prognostic Factors of Hearing Improvement for EES and MES in Attic Cholesteatoma.

Gao M, Zeng N, Kang W, Lin Y, Li P, Tao Y J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024; 53:19160216241286794.

PMID: 39418012 PMC: 11487515. DOI: 10.1177/19160216241286794.

Looking backward toward the future: A bibliometric analysis of the last 40 years of meningioma global outcomes.

Kose S, Aydogdu G, Demir E, Kiraz M Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(32):e39241.

PMID: 39121311 PMC: 11315511. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039241.

References

Semaan M, Megerian C . The pathophysiology of cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2006; 39(6):1143-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2006.08.003. View

Castle J . Cholesteatoma Pearls: Practical Points and Update. Head Neck Pathol. 2018; 12(3):419-429. PMC: 6081285. DOI: 10.1007/s12105-018-0915-5. View

Sheehy J, Brackmann D, Graham M . Cholesteatoma surgery: residual and recurrent disease. A review of 1,024 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1977; 86(4 Pt 1):451-62. DOI: 10.1177/000348947708600405. View

Badr-El-Dine M . Value of ear endoscopy in cholesteatoma surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2002; 23(5):631-5. DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200209000-00004. View

Ekici M, Demir E, Aydin C . A bibliometric perspective with research trends and global productivity on the modernization of andrology from the founder of modern clinical andrology Edward Martin to the present. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2024; 27(24):11947-11960. DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202312_34794. View

Demir E, Comba A . The evolution of celiac disease publications: a holistic approach with bibliometric analysis. Ir J Med Sci. 2019; 189(1):267-276. DOI: 10.1007/s11845-019-02080-x. View

Kiraz M, Demir E, Ozdemir O . An international bibliometric study of scientific articles on intracranial aneurysms. Neuroradiol J. 2021; 34(5):482-493. PMC: 8559010. DOI: 10.1177/19714009211012358. View

Demir E, Akmese O, Erbay H, Taylan-Ozkan A, Mumcuoglu K . Bibliometric analysis of publications on house dust mites during 1980-2018. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2020; 48(4):374-383. DOI: 10.1016/j.aller.2020.01.001. View

van Eck N, Waltman L . Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010; 84(2):523-538. PMC: 2883932. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3. View

10.

Thomassin J, Korchia D, Doris J . Endoscopic-guided otosurgery in the prevention of residual cholesteatomas. Laryngoscope. 1993; 103(8):939-43. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199308000-00021. View

11.

Tarabichi M . Endoscopic management of limited attic cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope. 2004; 114(7):1157-62. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200407000-00005. View

12.

Vercruysse J, De Foer B, Pouillon M, Somers T, Casselman J, Offeciers E . The value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary acquired and residual cholesteatoma: a surgical verified study of 100 patients. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16(7):1461-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0160-2. View

13.

Dubrulle F, Souillard R, Chechin D, Vaneecloo F, Desaulty A, Vincent C . Diffusion-weighted MR imaging sequence in the detection of postoperative recurrent cholesteatoma. Radiology. 2005; 238(2):604-10. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2381041649. View

14.

Kuo C . Etiopathogenesis of acquired cholesteatoma: prominent theories and recent advances in biomolecular research. Laryngoscope. 2014; 125(1):234-40. DOI: 10.1002/lary.24890. View

15.

Lingam R, Bassett P . A Meta-Analysis on the Diagnostic Performance of Non-Echoplanar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Detecting Middle Ear Cholesteatoma: 10 Years On. Otol Neurotol. 2017; 38(4):521-528. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001353. View

16.

Tomlin J, Chang D, McCutcheon B, Harris J . Surgical technique and recurrence in cholesteatoma: a meta-analysis. Audiol Neurootol. 2013; 18(3):135-42. DOI: 10.1159/000346140. View

17.

Ayache S, Tramier B, Strunski V . Otoendoscopy in cholesteatoma surgery of the middle ear: what benefits can be expected?. Otol Neurotol. 2008; 29(8):1085-90. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318188e8d7. View

18.

Marchioni D, Soloperto D, Rubini A, Villari D, Genovese E, Artioli F . Endoscopic exclusive transcanal approach to the tympanic cavity cholesteatoma in pediatric patients: our experience. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 79(3):316-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.12.008. View

19.

Tono T, Sakagami M, Kojima H, Yamamoto Y, Matsuda K, Komori M . Staging and classification criteria for middle ear cholesteatoma proposed by the Japan Otological Society. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2016; 44(2):135-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2016.06.012. View

20.

Magliulo G, Iannella G . Endoscopic versus microscopic approach in attic cholesteatoma surgery. Am J Otolaryngol. 2017; 39(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.10.003. View