Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:50:32.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Is simultaneous bilateral mastoidectomy ever advisable?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2007

J J Klemens
Affiliation:
Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
E Mhoon
Affiliation:
Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
M Redleaf*
Affiliation:
Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Miriam Redleaf, Section of Otolaryngology, Dept of Surgery, University of Chicago Hospitals, 5841 South Maryland Ave MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637-1035, USA. Fax: (773) 702 6809, E-mail: mredleaf@surgery.bsd.uchicago.edu

Abstract

Introduction:

We report our experience with bilateral, simultaneous tympanomastoidectomies and the results of an opinion survey of otologists.

Methods:

A chart review of 116 tympanomastoidectomies revealed 12 patients who underwent bilateral, simultaneous tympanomastoidectomies. An opinion survey generated 121 responses.

Results:

Of the 12 patients, none suffered any outcome which would have been avoided by staging the procedures. Twenty-three of 24 operated ears had the same or better hearing post-operatively. Of the survey respondents, 74 felt that performing bilateral, simultaneous tympanomastoidectomies was unsafe, largely because of the risk of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

Discussion:

Although bilateral, simultaneous tympanomastoidectomies carry double the risk of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, compared with the unilateral procedure, the risk of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss is only 0.006–0.2 per cent, as derived mathematically from historical data. Respondents to the survey were mostly opposed to bilateral, simultaneous tympanomastoidectomies, but even those opposed gave indications for simultaneous procedures. This finding probably reflects an ambivalence about the theoretical risks of the operation versus the potential patient benefits. A decision tree for proceeding to the second case is presented.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Smyth, GD. Sensorineural hearing loss in chronic ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1977;86:38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Palva, T, Karja, J, Palva, A. High-tone sensorineural losses following chronic ear surgery. Arch Otolaryngol 1973;98:176–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Tos, M, Lau, T, Plate, S. Sensorineural hearing loss following chronic ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1984;93:403–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Proctor, B. Chronic otitis and mastoiditis. In: Shumrick Paed. Otolaryngology, 3rd edn.Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1991;2:1349–76Google Scholar
5Kartush, JM. Ossicular chain reconstruction. Capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:689715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Pasha, R, Hill, SL 3rd, Burgio, DL. Evaluation of hydroxyapatite ossicular chain prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:425–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Mongkolrattanothai, K, Oram, R, Redleaf, M, Bova, J, Englund, JA. Tuberculous otitis media with mastoiditis and central nervous system involvement. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22:453–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed