Skip to main content

Limits of conventional temporal bone computed tomography in the management of cholesteatoma otitis media: Report of 96 cases

Abstract

Introduction

Cholesteatoma is a dangerous chronic otitis media, with keratine accumulation causing bone erosion and invasive damages. Computed tomography (CT) is commonly indicated to evaluate the extension and the complications of cholesteatoma.

Materials and methods

In 96 patients with cholesteatoma otitis, preoperative CT data were compared with surgical findings using the sensitivity, specificity, and the predictive value of a CT-scan for anatomical structures.

Results

A CT scan offers an adequate anatomical conformation of the tympanomastoid cavities. The lysis of the tegmen (Se = 61%, Sp = 79%) and the erosion of the scutum (Se = 100%, Sp = 51%) are well visualized on coronal sections. CT is very sensitive to objective ossicular chain lysis (Se = 90%) but with a low specificity (Sp = 71%). The performance of CT in the facial canal erosion (Se = 45%, Sp = 78%) and in the labyrinthine fistulae (Se = 46%, Sp = 98%) was insufficient with the conventional scanning machine used.

Conclusion

A CT-scan should be a routine exam before cholesteatoma surgery, but with improved resolution, and therefore sensitivity, to characterize all middle ear structures and complications of the disease.

References

  1. 1

    Ayache D, Schmerber S, Lavieille JP, Roger G, Gratacap B. Middle ear cholesteatoma. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 2006; 123: 120–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Robert Y, Dubrulle F, Carcasset S, Hennequin C, Gaillandre L, Vanecloo FM, Lemaitre L. Petrous bone extension of middle-ear acquired cholesteatoma. Acta Radiol 1996; 37: 166–170.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Tran Ba Huy P. Chronic otitis media. Natural history and clinical features. EMC Otorhinolaryngol 2005;2:26–61.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Zylberberg F, Williams MT, Ayache D, Piekarski JD. CT-scan of middle ear cholesteatoma. Feuillets Radiol 2000; 40: 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    M François. Complications of acute and chronic otitis media. EMC Otorhinolaryngol 2005; 2:92–106.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    MT Williams, D Ayache. Imaging in adult chronic otitis. J Radiol 2006; 87:1743–1755.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Chung J, Cushing SL, James AL, Gordon KA, Papsin BC. Congenital cholesteatoma and cochlear implantation: implications for management. Cochlear Implants Int 2013; 14: 32–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Ayache D, Darrouzet V, Dubrulle F, Vincent C, Bobin S, Williams M, Martin C, French Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (SFORL). Imaging of non-operated cholesteatoma: clinical practice guidelines. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2012; 129: 148–152.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Yates PD, Flood LM, Banerjee A, Clifford K. CT scanning of middle ear cholesteatoma: what does the surgeon want to know? Br J Radiol 2002; 75: 847–852.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Park MH, Rah YC, Kim YH, Kim JH. Usefulness of computed tomography Hounsfield unit density in preoperative detection of cholesteatoma in mastoid ad antrum. Am J Otolaryngol 2011; 32:194–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Silver AJ, Janecka I, Wazen J, Hilal SK, Rutledge JN. Complicated cholesteatomas: CT findings in inner ear complications of middle ear cholesteatomas. Radiology 1987; 164:47–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Vasdev A, Boubagra K, Lavieille JP, Bessou P, Lefournier V. Computerized tomographic images of secondary cholesteatomas of the middle ear and the petrous bone. J Neuroradiol 1994; 21:181–193.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Gaurano JL, Joharjy IA. Middle ear cholesteatoma: characteristic CT findings in 64 patients. Ann Saudi Med 2004; 24:442–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Fraysse B, Furia F, Manelfe C, Prère J, Azan L, Fayad J. CT-scan and cholesteatoma. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 1987;108:467–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Urano K, Nakayama K, Miyashita H, Isono M, Hijii Y, Murata K. Evaluation of reconstructed 3-D images of the middle ear using multi-slice scan CT. Int Congress Series 2003; 1240:1487–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Fuse T, Tada Y, Aoyagi M, Sugai Y. CT detection of facial canal dehiscence and semicircular canal fistula: comparison with surgical findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996; 20:221–224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Gersdorff MC, Nouwen J, Decat M, Degols JC, Bosch P. Labyrinthine fistula after cholesteatomatous chronic otitis media. Am J Otol 2000; 21:32–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Parisier SC, Edelstein DR, Han JC, Weiss MH. Management of labyrinthine fistulas caused by cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991; 104:110–115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Romanet P, Duvillard C, Delouane M, Vigne P, De Raigniac E, Darantiere S et al. Labyrinthine fistulae and cholesteatoma. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 2001;118:181–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Soda-Merhy A, Betancourt-Suárez MA. Surgical treatment of labyrinthine fistula caused by cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 122:739–742.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Gordon AG. Cholesteatoma, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and chronic otitis media. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27:1205, author reply 1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Vignaud J, Marsot-Dupuch K, Derosier C, Cordoliani YS, Pharaboz C. Imaging of the inner ear. Fr J Otorhinolaryngol 1994; 43:31–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Manolis EN, Filippou DK, Tsoumakas C, Diomidous M, Cunningham MJ, Katostaras T, et al. Radiologic evaluation of the ear anatomy in pediatric cholesteatoma. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20:807–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    DM Fahmy, SM Ragab. Detection of post operative residual cholesteatoma using PROPELLER DWI combined with conventional MRI. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2012; 43:543–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Vercruysse JP, De Foer B, Pouillon M, Somers T, Casselman J, Offeciers E. The value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary acquired and residual cholesteatoma: a surgical verified study of 100 patients. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:1461–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Szymañski M, Trojanowska A, Szymañska A, Morshed K. The use of MRI DWI-imaging in assessment of cholesteatoma recurrences after canal wall up technique [in Polish]. Otolaryngol Pol 2012; 66:45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dr. Mardassi Ali MD.

Additional information

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, M., Nabil, M., Safa, K. et al. Limits of conventional temporal bone computed tomography in the management of cholesteatoma otitis media: Report of 96 cases. Egypt J Otolaryngol 30, 73–77 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.133174

Download citation

Keywords

  • cholesteatoma
  • computed tomography
  • predictive value
  • sensitivity
  • specificity