Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare an endoscopic versus microscopic approach to removal of exostoses and osteomas in canalplasty procedures.STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review.SETTING: Private and tertiary referral centers.PATIENTS: Adult patients requiring canalplasty procedures performed either microscopically or endoscopically for removal of exostosis or osteoma and/or canal stenosis.INTERVENTION: Microscopic or endoscopic canalplasty.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Major outcome measures included assessment of hearing improvement as well as rates of major and minor complications. Standard audiological data were collected before and after the operative procedure. Major complications queried included stenosis, perforation of the tympanic membrane, hearing loss, facial palsy, and osteomyelitis. Minor complications queried included signs of poor wound healing, graft failure, and bleeding or discharge.RESULTS: Forty three canalplasties were performed on 36 patients. Audiometric tests did not significantly differ between endoscopic and microscopic surgeries. There was a moderate linear relationship between date of surgery and duration of surgery for the endoscopic technique, with more recent surgeries taking less time. No major complications were noted. However, significantly fewer endoscopic cases had evidence of minor postoperative complications relative to microscopic cases.CONCLUSIONS: An endoscopic approach to canalplasty is a safe and minimally invasive technique. Significantly fewer postoperative complications occurred after endoscopic canalplasty procedures as compared with microscopic procedures. Endoscopic repair may be preferred to microscopic repairs due to the improved view of the end of the instruments while maintaining a minimally invasive approach with what is likely a decreased operative time as well.

View details for DOI 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003240

View details for PubMedID 34172661