You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 132 No. 6, June 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Cancer Reconstruction of Head & Neck
 •Middle/ External Ear Disorders
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Facial Plastic Surgery
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Ceravital Reconstruction of Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy

Long-term Results

Charles C. Della Santina, PhD, MD; Su Cherl Lee, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:617-623.

Objective  To describe long-term outcomes of external auditory canal wall reconstruction using bioactive glass ceramic (Ceravital) after canal wall down mastoidectomy.

Design  Retrospective review of a case series over a 21-year period, with a mean ± SD follow-up of 13.1 ± 6.7 years (range, 0.2-20.5 years).

Setting  Private otologic practice.

Patients  The study population comprised 20 consecutive patients aged 12 to 60 years, who had previously undergone canal wall down mastoidectomy.

Intervention  Reconstruction of the canal wall with bioactive glass ceramic.

Main Outcome Measures  Incidence, cause, and timing of reconstruction failure; need for additional surgery; change in hearing; frequency of outpatient visits; and incidence of surgical complications.

Results  Prosthetic walls have remained intact in 16 patients followed for more than 5 years. One had remained intact at 3 months after surgery, but the patient was lost to follow-up. Prosthesis removal was required in 3 patients (because of infection, displacement, and cholesteatoma in 1 patient each). The only perioperative complications were otorrhea in 4 patients and a 5-dB sensorineural hearing loss in 1 patient. Of the 16 intact patients with long-term follow-up, 4 required no further surgery, while 11 underwent an average of 2 subsequent middle ear procedures each (range, 1-3), including 4 planned reexplorations. The mean ± SD air bone gap improved 11 ± 16 dB as of the most recent audiogram (mean ± SD, 7.7 ± 5.8 years after operation).

Conclusion  Canal wall reconstruction using bioactive glass ceramic is a useful option for patients who desire freedom from the frequent mastoid bowl debridements and activity restrictions that may result from canal wall down mastoidectomy.


Author Affiliations: Departments of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (Dr Della Santina), and Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Greater Baltimore Medical Center (Dr Lee), Baltimore, Md.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.