Review Article
Can endoscopic ear surgery replace microscopic surgery in the treatment of acquired cholesteatoma? A contemporary review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109872Get rights and content

Abstract

Acquired cholesteatoma leads to significant morbidities while current surgical options remain a challenge. The principles of surgery include complete removal of disease, prevention of recurrence, and restoration of hearing function when possible. Traditionally, this has been performed using microscopes; however, a novel technique using endoscopes offers a new perspective on our understanding of anatomy, pathogenesis and surgical approaches. In recent years, various studies have demonstrated good outcomes with transcanal endoscopic ear surgery (EES) in cholesteatoma surgery. Nevertheless, the use of EES is not universal and remains controversial due to the efficacy of microscopes, specific limitations of endoscopes and the need to learn new skills. This review focuses on recent advances in EES for the treatment of acquired cholesteatoma, benefits, current challenges, and a discussion on the indications and contraindications of EES.

Introduction

Acquired cholesteatoma is a non-neoplastic lesion consisting of keratinizing squamous epithelium in the temporal bone. This could be primary, arising from a retraction pocket, or secondary, due to migration of squamous epithelium via a tympanic membrane perforation [1,2]. Acquired cholesteatoma can gradually expand and erode adjacent structures by bone resorption, which may lead to intratemporal complications, such as hearing loss, vestibular dysfunction, facial paralysis, and intracranial complications [3,4]. Cholesteatoma is a surgical disease that requires meticulous surgical clearance [5].

The primary goal of cholesteatoma surgery is to provide a safe, dry ear. The traditional approach uses a microscope and includes canal wall up (CWU) and canal wall down (CWD) techniques; either performed via postauricular, endaural or transcanal approach [6]. The CWU technique, or closed cavity, retains more anatomy at the expense of higher risk of residual disease and need for possible second-look middle ear exploration. In contrast, the CWD technique, or open cavity, presents with lower recurrence rates but results in a mastoid cavity that requires life-long follow-up [7,8]. The choice between the two techniques remains an ongoing debate, and depends on disease status, patient factors, surgeon's skill and expertise level.

The use of endoscopes has revolutionized our approach to middle ear surgery [9]. Since the 1990s, endoscopic ear surgery (EES) has reported encouraging outcomes in tympanoplasty, ossiculoplasty, cochlear implantation, and neurotologic procedures [7,[10], [11], [12], [13], [14]]. For cholesteatoma, EES is primarily used as an adjunct to microscopes for diagnostic purposes. Thomassin et al. [15] first reported the use of the endoscope for the identification of residual cholesteatoma. Since then, various studies have shown the addition of endoscope use has significantly reduced residual and recurrence rates of cholesteatoma compared to microscope use alone, especially for CWU procedures [7]. In fact, there has been a shift towards exclusive EES without a microscope in the management of cholesteatoma [4,16,17].

Can EES replace traditional microscopic ear surgery (MES) in the treatment of acquired cholesteatoma? Here, we discuss the evidence behind EES in adult and pediatric cholesteatoma, advantages and disadvantages of EES as well as current challenges.

Section snippets

Methods

A literature review was performed in PubMed database from its inception to September 2019. Keywords “endoscopic surgery” and “acquired cholesteatoma” were searched. Relevant articles in the English language comparing the use of transcanal EES versus exclusive microscopic surgery in the treatment of acquired cholesteatoma in adult or pediatric populations were identified (Table 1). Publications that presented the outcomes of exclusive EES for management of acquired cholesteatoma without control

Adult cholesteatoma

The indication of EES includes cholesteatoma limited to the tympanic space and its sub-sites (e.g, epitympanum, mesotympanum, retrotympanum, protympanum, and hypotympanum) and antrum [[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]]. Where mastoid is involved, treatment options become controversial. Some suggest conversion to the microscope with CWD, or a combined endoscopic and microscopic approach with mastoidectomy [17]; whilst others claim that an exclusive endoscopic approach is possible [22,24,25

Benefits of EES

EES has significantly changed our traditional mindset and surgical approach [26,38]. Acquired cholesteatoma due to retraction of the tympanic membrane has its bulk in the middle ear, with more advanced cases reaching the mastoid cavity. The majority of failures with MES occurred within the tympanic space instead of the mastoid. EES redirects surgeons’ attention away from mastoid towards the tympanic space and subsites [26,28]. In fact, transcanal approach follows the rational route of

Current challenges

Worldwide, there has been a slow acceptance of this new technique, partly due to the adequacy of microscopes, the need to acquire new skills, and the perception of no added benefits to patients or surgeons [39]. Moreover, endoscopes have their inherent limitations that make it technically challenging, especially for novice surgeons at their ‘learning curve’ [26,38].

Limited cholesteatoma

The main indications for EES are limited cholesteatoma within the tympanic cavity and attic without significant mastoid involvement [26,38]; since disease that does not extend beyond the lateral semicircular canal can still be dissected with endoscopic equipment. Following transcanal elevation of tympanomeatal flap and atticotomy, the sac and matrix can be removed completely under direct visualization (Fig. 1). Tympanic membrane, ossicular chain and attic defect can be reconstructed using

Conclusion

EES represents a new frontier in our perception, understanding, and approach in middle ear surgery. Compared to the microscope, the endoscope is minimally invasive, has less morbidities, less recurrence rate compared to CWU mastoidectomies, results in better hearing outcomes with greater preservation of normal anatomy, as well as improves visualization and ability to look “around the corners”. However, the use of an endoscope can be technically difficult and has its learning curve. The

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81670920); Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (grant number LY15H130003); Medical and Health Science Research Foundation of Zhejiang Province (grant numbers 2016KYB272, 2020RC107); Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo (grant number 2018A610363); and Huimin Research and Development Foundation of Ningbo (grant number 2015C50026).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Acknowledgements

None.

References (56)

  • S. Liang et al.

    Review of anesthesia for middle ear surgery

    Anesthesiol. Clin.

    (2010)
  • T. Ito et al.

    Safety of heat generated by endoscope light sources in simulated transcanal endoscopic ear surgery

    Auris Nasus Larynx

    (2016)
  • M. Alzahrani et al.

    Tympanic membrane retraction pocket staging: is it worthwhile?

    Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.

    (2014)
  • C.L. Kuo

    Etiopathogenesis of acquired cholesteatoma: prominent theories and recent advances in biomolecular research

    Laryngoscope.

    (2015)
  • C. Alper et al.

    Assessment and management of retraction pockets

    Otolaryngol. Pol.

    (2017)
  • C.L. Kuo et al.

    A review of current progress in acquired cholesteatoma management

    Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.

    (2015)
  • J.L. Dornhoffer et al.

    Management of acquired cholesteatoma in the pediatric population

    Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.

    (2013)
  • L. Presutti et al.

    Results of endoscopic middle ear surgery for cholesteatoma treatment: a systematic review

    Acta. Otorhinolaryngol. Ital.

    (2014)
  • S. Ayache et al.

    Otoendoscopy in cholesteatoma surgery of the middle ear: what benefits can be expected?

    Otol. Neurotol.

    (2008)
  • M. Tarabichi et al.

    Principles of endoscopic ear surgery

    Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.

    (2016)
  • S. Preyer

    Endoscopic ear surgery - a complement to microscopic ear surgery

    HNO.

    (2017)
  • E.D. Kozin et al.

    Systematic review of outcomes following observational and operative endoscopic middle ear surgery

    Laryngoscope.

    (2015)
  • K.X. McKennan

    Endoscopic ‘second look’ mastoidoscopy to rule out residual epitympanic/mastoid cholesteatoma

    Laryngoscope.

    (1993)
  • S.I. Rosenberg et al.

    Endoscopy in otology and neurotology

    Am. J. Otol.

    (1994)
  • J.M. Thomassin et al.

    Endoscopic ear surgery. Initial evaluation

    Ann. Otolaryngol. Chir. Cervicofac.

    (1990)
  • L. Presutti et al.

    The impact of the transcanal endoscopic approach and mastoid preservation on recurrence of primary acquired attic cholesteatoma

    Otol. Neurotol.

    (2018)
  • M.R. Bae et al.

    Comparison of the clinical results of attic cholesteatoma treatment: endoscopic versus microscopic ear surgery

    Clin. Exp. Otorhinolaryngol.

    (2019)
  • M. Tarabichi

    Endoscopic management of limited attic cholesteatoma

    Laryngoscope.

    (2004)
  • Cited by (20)

    • Republication of: Management of a posterior mesotympanic cholesteatoma using the transcanal endoscopic approach

      2023, Annales Francaises d'Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie et de Pathologie Cervico-Faciale
    • Management of a Posterior Mesotympanic Cholesteatoma using the Transcanal Endoscopic Approach

      2023, European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases
    • Current trends and applications in endoscopy for otology and neurotology

      2021, World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      Only the most advanced cases extend into the mastoid. Using the transcanal approach, the sac can be traced along its anatomical growth pattern and can be detached from ossicles and ligaments, removing the cholesteatoma en bloc from the tympanic cavity, leaving a greater chance of preserving the ossicles.20 TEES also provides an improved view of typical cholesteatoma sites such as the protympanum, epitympanum, and retrotympanum, which reduces the need for canal wall up mastoidectomies that are traditionally used to explore these spaces.2

    • Heads-up Surgery: Endoscopes and Exoscopes for Otology and Neurotology in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

      2021, Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America
      Citation Excerpt :

      TEES diminishes the need for a canal wall–up mastoidectomy in some cases12 and facilitates en bloc removal of cholesteatoma, with an improved chance of ossicular preservation13 and decreased rates of residual and recurrent disease.14 In studies comparing TEES to microscopic surgery for cholesteatoma, results have shown comparable or improved rates of control,15 improved quality of life, decreased surgical morbidity, shorter healing time, and less postoperative pain due to avoidance of postauricular incisions.16 TEES for tympanoplasty results in similar outcomes compared with microscopic approaches.17,18

    • Endoscopic atticotomy for attic cholesteatomas using piezosurgery

      2024, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text