Beta Fulltext view is in preview — article structure may vary. Browse all articles
Contents
Otolaryngology Open Access Journal Research Article 11 min read

Pediatric Cholesteatoma Aggressiveness; A Comparative Study of Predictive Factors and Recurrence Rate

Zeinab Al Qudehy*, Abdulrahman Al-Abdulqader and Hamzah Alshaikh
* Corresponding author
ISSN: 2476-2490  10.23880/ooaj-16000109  Received: June 13, 2016  Published: July 13, 2016
  views
 6 tables
PDF
Keywords
Pediatric Cholesteatoma Aggressiveness Canal Wall Up (CWU) Canal Wall Down (CWD)
Abstract

Objective: The optimal surgical treatment for pediatric cholesteatoma is controversial. Management decisions including intact canal wall versus open cavity techniques continue to be debated. In an attempt to clarify this issue, we conducted a retrospective analysis of our experience with cholesteatoma cases presenting in pediatric population. Material and Method: Retrospective review was conducted on all children younger than 18 years of age and had cholesteatoma, between 2010 and 2013. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified. The children were divided into canal wall down (CWD) and canal wall up (CWU) mastoidectomies. The two groups were then compared regarding their age at presentation, clinical presentation, microscopic examination, radiological grading, intra operative findings, and postoperative outcomes, and compared with international recurrence rate figures. Results: We had total of four CWD & seven CWU mastoidectomies. CWD children were an average of 6 years of age, and had more aggressive disease at presentation with attic erosion in 75% of the cases. Granulation tissues with eroded ossicles were present in almost all the cases. While, CWU children had a longer history of offensive ear discharge, and presented with retraction pocket in 43% of the cases. There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate in CWD and CWU groups (25% & 28.6% respectively). Conclusion: Treatment of pediatric cholesteatoma should be individualized. The choice between CWU & CWD can be judged by several factors in patient history and through a thorough clinical ear examination. CWU procedure is an adequate surgical option for treating most acquired and congenital cholesteatomas, preventing disease recurrence, and maintaining good hearing outcomes, and CWD mastoidectomy chosen for patients with recurrent or more extensive disease.

Zeinab AlQudehy1*, Abdulrahman Al-Abdulqader1 and Hamzah

Alshaikh2

Arabia

31311, Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia, Tel: 00966504804838; Email: drzeinabent@gmail.com .Abstract recurrence rate in CWD and CWU groups (25% & 28.6% respectively).

extensive disease.

Otolaryngology Open Access Journal

Introduction

Pediatric cholesteatoma is a potentially dangerous disease affecting the quality of life of affected children. There are many challenges in diagnosing and treating cholesteatoma in pediatric age group with no universally accepted opinions about the best surgical options and its outcome. The primary goal of cholesteatoma surgery is complete eradication of disease with the secondary goal of hearing improvement post-operatively. Children with cholesteatoma have been shown to demonstrate more aggressive disease than adults with higher recurrence rates [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. The two main surgical procedures used to deal with cholesteatoma are canal wall up (CWU) and canal wall down (CWD). CWU procedure is distinguished from CWD technique by the preservation of the posterior wall of the external auditory canal. While a number of surgeons prefer the CWD technique, others opt for CWU. Each of the two procedures had its own advantages and disadvantages. CWU in comparison to CWD has more rapid healing, allowance of water exposure during swimming, decreased postoperative aural care, and allow patients to use hearing aid in the postoperative period [8]. The main disadvantage of CWU is the technical difficulties with limited exposure of the epitympanum and sinus tympani typically leading to a higher residual and recurrence rate compared with CWD [1, 9]. Predicting factors for aggressiveness of pediatric cholesteatoma are not yet well established, therefore, the best treating surgical options is not yet standardized. Regardless of techniques, recurrent cholesteatoma developing from postoperative tympanic membrane retraction and adhesions is still frequent problems encountered in 7-57% of the case [1, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Management of pediatric cholesteatoma remains to be debated. To our best knowledge, none of the previous studies addressed aggressive behavior of cholesteatoma in Middle East children. We performed a 3-year retrospective review of our experience. In an attempt to find predictive factors for aggressiveness of pediatric cholesteatoma. This will help treating surgeon to clarify the issue of the most appropriate management of pediatric cholesteatoma, therefore reduce the recurrence of the disease and eliminate the need for surgeon ear revisit.

Methods

This study was designed as a retrospective cohort study based on two surgeon’s clinical practice at Dammam Medical Complex, Ministry of Health, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. Eligible patients were identified from a prospectively kept surgical database, which include demographics, symptoms at presentation, otological examination, audiological findings, and performed surgical procedures along with intra operative detailed reports. Complications, and follow up information were extracted from individual patient’s hospital medical records. Research ethics approval was granted by Dammam Medical Complex Research Ethical Approval Committee (DMC-RACNo. 0020). Eligible children were those younger than 18 years of age, who had clinical symptoms and signs suggestive of cholesteatoma, and underwent mastoidectomy between August 2010 and July 2013. Children were excluded if the indication for mastoidectomy was not suspicion of acquired cholesteatoma, or presence of congenital cholesteatma as judged by the clinical picture.

Data Collection

Review of the hospital medical records was then completed and crosschecked to ensure data accuracy. The exclusion criteria were then applied to give the final data for analysis.

From prospectively designed database

Variables of interest were collected prospectively by one pediatric otolaryngology surgeon (ZQ) and one otology surgeon (YN) in a special patient information sheet during the clinic visit, and operating room session, and included: a) Age at time of initial presentation b) Gender c) Allergies d) Ear affected e) Ear discharge f) Ear discharge characteristics, such as presence of offensive smell, or blood g) Ear pain h) Overall duration of symptoms i) Previous ear trauma j) Hearing loss k) Recurrent upper respiratory tract infections l) Tinnitus m) Vertigo n) Nystagmus o) Facial Asymmetry p) Findings at otologic examination, such as attic cholesteatoma, granulation tissue, tympanic membrane perforation, aural polyp, active ear Otolaryngology Open Access Journal

discharge, keratin flakes, or tympanic membrane retraction pocket. q) Tuning fork tests r) Fistula test s) Facial nerve integrity t) Basic audiology examination (PTA, and tympanogram) u) Intraoperative findings including; mastoid pneumatization, presence of granulation tissues or keratin flakes, involvement of the ossicles, facial canal erosion, facial nerve dehiscence, lateral semicircular canal dehiscence, intracranial involvement, and if reconstruction done.

Hospital patient’s medical record

Review of the hospital medical records was then completed and crosschecked to ensure data accuracy. The following variables were collected:

a) Complications (intraoperative & postoperative) b) Evidence of recurrence of patient’s initial symptoms/signs on follow up

Follow-up

All patients, included in this study, were followed up by the primary treating surgeon for a minimum of one-year duration after the mastoidectomy.

Statistical analysis

Simple descriptive statistics was used to interpret the results of this study.

Results

A total of 11 patients were included in our study. The average age of patients at initial presentation was11.6 years (range 5-18 years), with almost equal gender distribution. The children included in our study were having positive history of allergy in one fourth of the cases and was mainly allergic conjunctivitis and bronchial asthma. Right and left ears were equally affected. 10 of the included patients, 90% had ear discharge as their chief complaint at presentation, out of whom9 had offensive discharge. One quarter of patients had blood stained discharge and were having painful ears. The duration of patient symptoms were variable ranging from one month to 8 years, with average of 30 months. 90 % of patients had hearing loss at presentation. Two out of the 11 cases had history of bilateral myringotomy and ventilation tubes insertion.

From another view, a retrospective classification of the studied patients according to the surgical procedure was carried out. Children were divided into canal wall down (CWD) and canal wall up (CWU) mastoidectomies. The two groups were then compared according to their age at time of presentation, clinical presentation (Table 1), patient’s examination (Table 2), intraoperative findings (Table 3) and performed surgical procedures with postoperative outcomes including recurrence rate (Table 4).

CWDCWUCOMMENT
Number of Cases47
*Average age of patients6 years16.3 yearsYounger patients
had CWD
M:F Ratio1 to 34 to 3Apparently no
differences
Allergies1/4 (25%) allergic
conjunctivitis
2/7 (28.5%) bronchial
asthma
Affected ears left: right1 left and 3 right (25 %
left & 75% right)
5 left and 2 right (71.4% left
& 28.6% right)
Ear dischargeYes in 100%Yes in 85.7%
Offensive dischargePositive in 100%Positive in 83.3%
Bloody dischargePositive in 25% (1/4)Positive in 28.6% (2/7)
OtalgiaPositive 25% (1/4)Positive 28.6% (2/7)
*Average duration of
symptoms
12.75 months (3-24
months)
39.86 months (1 month - 8
years)
Patients with longer
duration of
symptoms had CWD
Hearing lossPositive in 100%Positive 85.7% (6/7)Apparently no

Table 1: Intraoperative Ear Findings Characteristics of Both Groups (Cwd & Cwu Groups). • Significant variable upon observation

Otolaryngology Open Access Journal

Recurrent URTI All negative All negative differences Tinnitus All negative All negative Vertigo All negative All negative Nystagmus All negative All negative Facial Asymmetry All negative All negative Past Surgical History BMAT Positive 25% (1/4) Positive 14.3% (1/7)

CWD (4)CWU (7)COMMENT
Findings at Microscopic Ear Examination
Attic cholesteatoma25% (1/4)14.3% (1/7)Apparently no
differences
Granulation tissue25% (1/4)14.3% (1/7)
TM perforation25% (1/4)28.6% (2/7)
*Aural polyp50% (2/4)0%Patient with one or
more of those signs
had CWD
*Ear discharge50% (2/4)0%
*Keratin flakes50% (2/4)0%
*TM retraction pocket25% (1/4)42.9% (3/7)
Un-affected ear TM
retraction
25% (1/4)28.6% (2/7)Apparently no
differences
Nasal Examination
DNS25% (1/4)0%Apparently no
differences
HIT25% (1/4 HIT)14.3% (1/7)
Throat: Tonsil Enlargement75% (3/4)0%
Tuning Fork Test
Rinnie Test in The AffectedNegative: 100% (4/4)Negative 71.4%
(5/7)
Positive 28.6%
(2/7)
Apparently no
differences
Weber TestLateralized to the affected
ear: 100% (4/4)
Lateralized to
affected ear:
71.4% (5/7)
Centralized:
28.6% (2/7)
Fistula Test Positive0%0%
Facial Nerve Paralysis0%0%
Audiological Examination
PTA100% (4/4) moderate CHL71.4% (5/7)
moderate CHL,
28.6% (2/7)
mild- moderate
CHL
Apparently no
differences
Tympanogram25% (1/4) type B
75% (3/4) type A with
absent stabedial reflex
28.6% (2/7)
type B

Table 2: Intraoperative Ear Findings Characteristics of Both Groups (Cwd & Cwu Groups). • Significant variable upon observation

Otolaryngology Open Access Journal

CWD (4)CWU (7)COMMENT
*Pneumatization of the mastoid100% (4/4) sclerotic57.1% (4/7) scleroticPatients with
sclerotic mastoids
had CWD
*Presence of granulationtissues100% (4/4)
- 50% (2/4) sinus tympani
- 50% (2/4) epitympanum
- 25% (1/4)
mesotympanum
- 50% (2/4) medial to the
ossicles
57.1% (4/7)
0%
0%
0%
100% (4/4) lateral to
the ossicles
Patients with
granulation tissues
in the middle ear had
CWD
Keratin flakes100% (4/4)100% (7/7)Apparently no
differences
*Ossicules engulfed by the
granulation tissue
100% (4/4)57.1% (4/7)Patients with
ossicular
involvement had
CWD
*Incus erosion + IS joint affection75% (3/4)57.1% (4/7)
*Stapes suprastructure erosion75% (3/4)28.6% (2/7)
Facial canal erosion0%0%Apparently no
differences
Facial nerve dehiscence0%0%
LSCC dehiscence0%0%
Intracranial involvement0%0%

Table 3: Intraoperative Ear Findings Characteristics of Both Groups (Cwd & Cwu Groups). • Significant variable upon observation

CWD (4)CWU (7)COMMENT
Performed surgical
procedures
- 100% (4/4) CWD +
Conchomeatoplasty
- 71.4%
(5/7)atticoantrostomy
- 28.6% (2/5) retrograde
atticotomy
- 42.6% (3/5) combined
approach
Variable types of
CWU procedures
were performed
Reconstruction done- 25% (1/4)EAC + attic
cartilage reconstruction
-50% (2/4)tympanoplasty
-28.6% (2/7) tympanoplastyApparently no
differences
Intraoperative &
postoperative
complications
0%0%
Follow up average & range20.5 months (12-30
months)
26.3 months (12-35 months)
*Recurrence Rate25% (1/4)28.6% (2/7)Almost equal
recurrence rate in bot
CWD & CWU

Table 4: Performed Surgical Procedures and Outcome Measures Characteristics of Both Groups (Cwd & Cwu Groups). • Significant vari

recurrent disease. A review of the literatures addressing the follow up period, after acquired cholesteatoma surgery, identified various predictors of disease recurrence. Most of recurrences were observed in younger patients aged less than 8 years [18, 19, 20] with strong relationship between the young age of patients at presentation and the disease aggressiveness. In our study, patients with more aggressive cholesteatoma, who required CWD procedures, were those who were younger at time of start of their symptoms while the patients with less aggressive disease and requiring CWU were older by almost ten years. In regards to the average duration of patients symptoms, Palva et al. [16] reported that average duration of symptoms in children with cholesteatoma was 5.8 years, our participants had their symptoms lasted for more than three years in patients required CWU techniques, and about one year in patients required more aggressive operation, i.e. CWD. Opposite to our study, Belachdi et al. had linked symptoms longer than two years with higher risk of recurrence of pediatric cholesteatoma [18]. Ossicular chain involvement at the time of presentation was associated with more extensive disease as seen by Shirazi and colleagues [21], and found that ossicular chain involvement was a significant predictor of patients with a high risk for recurrent disease and therefore more aggressive surgical disease eradication procedures became a necessity as shown in our study. Stanger up and colleagues had found that the age of the patient, presence of ear discharge, ossicular chain resorption, and preoperative Eustachian tube dysfunction were the main predictors for pediatric cholesteatoma [22]. Aggressive cholesteatoma was associated with presence of posterior middle ear invasion, ossicular erosion, and discharging ears preoperatively as found by Vartiainen [23]. In our current study, the findings of more aggressive disease was found in younger children, who had shorter duration of the disease, and found in examination to have active persistent ear discharge, with keratin flakes and retraction pockets. Intraoperative findings of granulation tissues in sinus tympani, epitympanum, and medial to the ossicles, along with ossicular erosion were predictors of aggressive disease and in favor of CWD procedures to eradicate the disease adequately. Using these predictors on regular bases can lead to reduce cholesteatoma recurrence rate and reduce the incidence of ear revisit. In our study, recidivism occurred with comparable rates in CWD and CWU groups 25% and 28.6% respectively. These results are compared with the previously published studies (Table 5). The main limitations of our study are that being retrospective in nature and did not address the radiological feature as predictors for cholesteatoma aggressiveness. In addition to this, the number of the patient included in the study owing to the fact that it was carried out by data collected from two surgeons only over a relatively short study period in comparison to the literatures (Table 5).

StudyCWUCWD
N. ofN. ofN. ofOverall
AuthorDuration/StudyRRRR
PatientsCWUCWDRR (%)
Population(%)(%)
Glasscock et al. [2]6 years/ adult +
children
144142246--
Brown [10]10 years/ adult +
children
986236343530
Charachon & Gratacap
[11]
15 years/ children (3-
15 yrs.)
1369937424538
Sanna et al. [12]Children148144440--
Parisier et al. [13]Children16562103101514
Dodson et al. [1]11 years/ children (10
m – 18 yrs.)
584117364112
Darrouzet et al. [14]10 years/ children21018921312943
Scott et al. [24]11 years/ children27822157161712

Table 5: A comparison between the previously reported studies and our current study. N: Number; RR: Recurrence Rate

Otolaryngology Open Access Journal

Shirazi et al. [21]16 years/ children106--786
CURRENT STUDY3 years/ children117427.328.625

Table 6: A comparison between the previously reported studies and our current study. N: Number; RR: Recurrence Rate

Conclusion

Cholesteatoma is more common to be an extensive disease in pediatric population in comparison to that in adults, with higher incidence of residual and recurrent disease. Although it is controversial, it is largely accepted that pediatric cholesteatoma necessitate a more advanced form of treatment. There are many available surgical options to treat cholesteatoma, and the outcome of the surgical management can be determined mainly by the rate of recidivism. Some of the several factors contributing to the final choice of technique are age of patients, duration of symptoms, extent of the disease, anatomical variation, structures affected, and surgeon’s choice were highlighted in this study and should be taken into consideration preoperatively and intra operatively to reduce the risk of the disease recurrence.

References 1. Dodson EE, Hashisaki GT, Hobgood TC, Lambert PR

(1998) Intact canal wall mastoidectomy with tympanoplasty for cholesteatoma in children. Laryngoscope 108(7): 977-983.

2. Glasscock ME, Dickens JRE, Weit R (1981) Cholesteatoma in children. Laryngoscope 91(10): 1743-1753.

3. Shuring AG, Lippy WH, Rizer FM, Schuring LT (1990)

Staging for cholesteatoma in the child, adolescent and adult. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 99(4): 256-260.

4. Bujia J, Holly A, Antoli-Candela F, Tapia MG,

Kastenbauer E (1996) Immunobiological peculiarities of cholesteatoma in children: quantification of epithelial proliferation by MIB 1. Laryngoscope 106(7): 865-868.

5. Sheehy JL (1985) Cholesteatoma surgery in children.

Am J Otol 6(2): 170-172.

6. Vartiainen E, Karja J, Karjalainen S (1986) Surgery of chronic otitis media in young patients. J Laryngol Otol 100(5): 515-519.

Prognostic factors of recidivism in pediatric cholesteatoma surgery. Int J Otorhinolaryngol 67(12): 1325-1330.

8. Shohet JA, de Jong AL (2002) The management of pediatric cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 35(4): 841-851.

9. Mutlu C, Khashaba A, Saleh E, Karmakar S, Bhatia S, et al. Surgical treatment of cholesteatoma in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113(1): 56-60.

10. Brown JS (1982) A ten year statistical follow-up of

1142 consecutive cases of cholesteatoma: the closed versus open technique. Laryngoscope 92(4): 390-396.

11. Charachon R, Gratacap B (1985) The surgical treatment of cholesteatoma in children. Clin Otolaryngol 10(4): 177-184.

12. Sanna M, Zini C, Gamoletti R, Delogu P, Russo A, et al.

(1987) The surgical management of childhood cholesteatoma. J Laryngol Otol 101(12): 1221-1226.

13. Parisier SC, Hanson MB, Han JC, Cohen AJ, Selkin BA

(1996) Pediatric cholesteatoma: an individualized, single-stage approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115(1): 107-114.

14. Darrouzet V, Duclos JY, Portmann D, Bebear JP (2000)

Preference for the closed technique in the management of cholesteatoma of the middle ear in children: a retrospective study of 215 consecutive patients treated over 10 years. Am J Otol 21(4): 474- 478.

15. Edelstein DR, Parisier SC (1989) Surgical techniques and recidivism in cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 22(5): 1029-1040.

16. Palva A, Karma P, Kärjä J (1977) Cholesteatoma in children. Arch Otolaryngol 103(2): 74-77.

17. Smythe JL, Brachman D, Grahm M (1984) Complications of cholesteatoma: a report on 1024 cases. In: Swartz JD. Cholesteatomas of the middle Otolaryngology Open Access Journal

ear: Diagnosis, etiology and complications. Radiol Clin N Am 22: 15-34.

18. Belcadhi M, Chahed H, Mani R, Bouzouita K (2008)

Predictive Factors of Recurrence in Pediatric Cholesteatoma Surgery. Mediterr J Oto 4: 118-124.

19. Mishiro Y, Sakagami M, Okumura S, Takeda N, Kubo T

(2000) Postoperative results for cholesteatoma in children. Auris Nasus Larynx 27(3): 223-226.

20. De Corso E, Marchese MR, Scarano E , Paludetti G

(2006) Aural acquired cholesteatoma in children: surgical findings, recurrence and functional results. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 70(7): 1269-1273.

21. Shirazi MA, Muzaffar K, Leonetti JP, Marzo S (2006)

Surgical treatment of pediatric cholesteatomas. Laryngoscope 116(9): 1603-1607.

22. Stangerup SE, Drozdziewicz D, Tos M, Hougaard

Jensen A (2000) Recurrence of attic cholesteatoma: different methods of estimating recurrence rates. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000 123(3): 283-287.

23. Vartiainen E (1995) Factors associated with recurrence of cholesteatoma. J Laryngol Otol 109(7): 590-592.

24. Schraff SA, Strasnick B (2006) Pediatric cholesteatoma: a retrospective review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 70(3): 385-393.

More from this journal

Cite this article

BibTeX
APA
RIS
@article{zeinab2016,
  title   = {Pediatric Cholesteatoma Aggressiveness; A Comparative
Study of Predictive Factors and Recurrence Rate},
  author  = {Zeinab Al Qudehy, Abdulrahman Al-Abdulqader and Hamzah Alshaikh},
  journal = {Otolaryngology Open Access Journal},
  year    = {2016},
  volume  = {1},
  number  = {2},
  doi     = {10.23880/ooaj-16000109}
}
Zeinab Al Qudehy, Abdulrahman Al-Abdulqader and Hamzah Alshaikh (2016). Pediatric Cholesteatoma Aggressiveness; A Comparative
Study of Predictive Factors and Recurrence Rate. Otolaryngology Open Access Journal, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.23880/ooaj-16000109
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Pediatric Cholesteatoma Aggressiveness; A Comparative
Study of Predictive Factors and Recurrence Rate
AU  - Zeinab Al Qudehy, Abdulrahman Al-Abdulqader and Hamzah Alshaikh
JO  - Otolaryngology Open Access Journal
PY  - 2016
VL  - 1
IS  - 2
DO  - 10.23880/ooaj-16000109
ER  -