![]() The most frequent and popular techniques consist of either local flaps (muscle, periosteum, or fascia) or free autologous grafts (bone, cartilage, fat, fascia), or even alloplastic grafts (hydroxyapatite, silicon, synthetics bones, among others). Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1979 360:152-154Over the course of the last decades, there have been a large number of reports detailing a multiplicity of techniques for obliterating the mastoid cavity. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1979 360:152-154modified and popularized the technique, further adding to it the use of bone chips and bone pate in combination with an anteriorly based musculoperiosteal flap. These findings encouraged surgeons to associate other filler materials inside the bowl. Laryngoscope 2002 112(10):1777-1781which demonstrates the replacement of muscle with fibro-connective tissue and fat. The fate of mastoid obliteration tissue: a histopathological study. This observation is supported by histological data from the temporal bone study of Linthicum, 4 4 Linthicum FH Jr. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013 21(5):455-460The researcher noticed that the muscle atrophied over time, causing a progressive enlargement in cavity size. Use of mastoid obliteration techniques in cholesteatoma. Mosher described an obliteration technique using a superiorly based postauricular soft tissue flap. Mosher, in 1911, started the idea of mastoid obliteration to promote healing of a mastoidectomy defect. Mastoid obliteration: autogenous cranial bone pate reconstruction. 2 2 Roberson JB Jr, Mason TP, Stidham KR. Other frequent complaints may include water intolerance, leading to infection, the need for frequent otomicroscopic cleaning, calorically induced vertigo from either water or air exposure, barometrically induced vertigo, and, in those with compromising hearing loss, being unable to wear traditional hearing aids. ![]() Recurrent drainage and infection are the most common cause of discontent and medical return for patients with mastoid bowls. Although the majority of patients experience little to no long-term problems postoperatively, there is a small but expressive number of patients with chronic complaints associated with the persistent mastoid bowl. Canal wall down mastoidectomy (CWD) is one of those common surgical techniques with variations of long-term outcomes. Usually, for a successful surgical eradication of medium ear diseases, the otologic surgeon must remove diseased anatomic structures and, sometimes, even normal structures. Mastoid Obliteration with autologous bone has been utilized for many years to present date, and it seems to be safe, low-cost, with low recurrence rates - similar to traditional canal wall down procedures and with greater water resistance and quality of life improvements.Ĭholesteatoma middle ear mastoid obliteration mastoidectomy otitis media suppurative bone and bones tympanomastoidectomy We analyzed nine studies of case series comprehending similar surgery techniques on 1017 total cases of operated ears in both adults and children, with at least 12 months follow-up. ObjectivesĮvaluate the effectiveness of the mastoid obliteration with autologous bone in mastoidectomy surgery with canal wall down for chronic otitis, with or without cholesteatoma. The obliteration technics arise as an effort to avoid the disadvantages of both techniques. A canal wall up technique eliminates the need to destroy the middle ear and mastoid, but is associated with a higher rate of residual cholesteatoma. However, canal wall down is an aggressive approach, as it involves creating an open cavity and changing the anatomy and physiology of themiddle ear andmastoid. Canal wall down mastoidectomy has been traditionally used to achieve those goals with greater or lesser degrees of success. The objectives of mastoidectomy in cholesteatoma are a disease-free and dry ear, the prevention of recurrent disease, and the maintenance of hearing or the possibility to reconstruct an affected hearing mechanism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |