Evaluation of Long-term Cholesteatoma Recidivism: Using the JOS, EAONO-JOS, and STAMCO Cholesteatoma Staging Systems.

Maura C Eggink, Maarten J F de Wolf, Fenna A Ebbens, Frederik G Dikkers, Erik van Spronsen
Author Information
  1. Maura C Eggink: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic value of the Japanese Otological Society (JOS), EAONO-JOS, and STAMCO classifications in predicting the severity of acquired Cholesteatoma and to identify other factors that could influence residual and recurrent Cholesteatoma, as well as adverse events (AE).
METHOD: A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing primary Cholesteatoma surgery in our tertiary referral center. Primary outcome measures were based on three groups of follow-up (FU): Group A, studying residual Cholesteatoma, FU > 52 weeks of last-look surgery or magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging; group B, studying recurrent disease, FU > 52 weeks of last outpatient clinic visit; and group C, studying AE, FU > 12 weeks after surgery. Cholesteatomata were staged according to the JOS, EAONO-JOS, and STAMCO classifications. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to determine the prognostic value of the various classifications and to identify other determining factors, while correcting for FU.
RESULTS: FU was found to be a significant confounder. No correlation was found between staging and the occurrence of residual or recurrent disease, nor the occurrence of AE. Type of surgery was a significant determinant of all three primary outcome measures. A higher age was associated with a lower risk of residual disease.
CONCLUSION: In our population the JOS, EAONO-JOS, and STAMCO classifications have limited prognostic value. Three main confounders were identified that pose a challenge in developing a universal classification: FU, surgery type, and age. Cholesteatoma staging should be postponed until a system is developed which significantly correlates Cholesteatoma stage to Cholesteatoma severity, to have implications for management strategies.

References

  1. Nadol JB. Causes of failure of mastoidectomy for chronic otitis media. Laryngoscope 1985; 95: 410–3.
  2. Tomlin J, Chang D, McCutcheon B, Harris J. Surgical technique and recurrence in cholesteatoma: A meta-analysis. Audiol Neurotol 2013; 18: 135–42.
  3. Britze A, Moller ML, Ovesen T. Incidence, 10-year recidivism rate and prognostic factors for cholesteatoma. J Laryngol Otol 2017; 131:319–328.
  4. Meyerhoff WL, Truelson J. Cholesteatoma staging. Laryngoscope 1986; 96 ((9 pt 1)):935–939.
  5. Saleh HA, Mills RP. Classification and staging of cholesteatoma. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999; 24:355–359.
  6. Tos M. Incidence, etiology and pathogenesis of cholesteatoma in children. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1988; 40:110–117.
  7. Black B, Gutteridge I. Acquired cholesteatoma: Classification and outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32:992–995.
  8. Yung M, Tono T, Olszewska E, et al. EAONO/JOS joint consensus statements on the Definitions, Classification and Staging of Middle Ear Cholesteatoma. J Int Adv Otol 2017; 13:1–8.
  9. Tono T, Sakagami M, Kojima H, et al. Staging and classification criteria for middle ear cholesteatoma proposed by the Japan Otological Society. Auris Nasus Larynx 2017; 44:135–140.
  10. Merkus P, ten Tije FA, Stam M, Tan FML, Pauw RJ. Implementation of the “EAONO/JOS definitions and classification of middle ear cholesteatoma” – from STAM to STAMCO. J Int Adv Otol 2017; 13:272–275.
  11. Matsuda K, Tono T, Kojima H, et al. Practicality analysis of the staging system proposed by the Japan Otological Society for acquired middle ear cholesteatoma: A multicenter study of 446 surgical cases in Japan. Auris Nasus Larynx 2018; 45:45–50.
  12. James AL, Tono T, Cohen MS, et al. International Collaborative Assessment of the Validity of the EAONO-JOS Cholesteatoma Staging System. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40:630–637.
  13. Linder TE, Shah S, Martha AS, Röösli C, Emmett SD. Introducing the “ChOLE” Classification and Its Comparison to the EAONO/JOS Consensus Classification for Cholesteatoma Staging. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40:63–72.
  14. Iino Y, Imamura Y, Kojima C, Takegoshi S, Suzuki JI. Risk factors for recurrent and residual cholesteatoma in children determined by second stage operation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1998; 46:57–65.
  15. Vartiainen E. Factors associated with recurrence of cholesteatoma. J Laryngol Otol 1995; 109:590–592.
  16. Stankovic M. Follow-up of cholesteatoma surgery: Open versus closed tympanoplasty. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2007; 69:299–305.
  17. Stangerup SE, Drozdziewicz D, Tos M. Cholesteatoma in children, predictors and calculation of recurrence rates. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1999; 49: (suppl 1): S69–S73.
  18. Yung M, James A, Merkus P, et al. International otology outcome group and the international consensus on the categorization of tympanomastoid surgery. J Int Adv Otol 2018; 14:216–226.
  19. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 1992; 111:518–526.
  20. van der Toom H, van der Schroeff M, Janssen J, Westzaan A, Pauw R. A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison of the STAM and STAMCO Classification and EAONO/JOS Cholesteatoma Staging System in Predicting Surgical Treatment Outcomes of Middle Ear Cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41:e468–e474.
  21. Stangerup SE, Drozdziewicz D, Tos M, Hougaard-Jensen A. Recurrence of attic cholesteatoma: Different methods of estimating recurrence rates. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123:283–287.
  22. Nyrop M, Bonding P. Extensive cholesteatoma: Long-term results of three surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol 1997; 111:521–526.
  23. Møller PR, Pedersen CN, Grosfjeld LR, Faber CE, Djurhuus BD. Recurrence of cholesteatoma: A retrospective study including 1,006 patients for more than 33 years. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24: e18–e23.
  24. Kuo CL, Lien CF, Shiao AS. Mastoid obliteration for pediatric suppurative cholesteatoma: Long-term safety and sustained effectiveness after 30 years’ experience with cartilage obliteration. Audiol Neurotol 2014; 19:358–369.
  25. Hellingman CA, Geerse S, de Wolf MJF, Ebbens FA, van Spronsen E. Canal wall up surgery with mastoid and epitympanic obliteration in acquired cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope 2019; 129:981–985.
  26. Kuo CL, Shiao AS, Yung M, et al. Updates and knowledge gaps in cholesteatoma research. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015:854024.
  27. Pai I, Crossley E, Lancer H, Dudau C, Connor S. Growth and late detection of post-operative cholesteatoma on long term follow-up with diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI MRI): A retrospective analysis from a single UK Centre. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40:638–644.
  28. Fukuda A, Morita S, Nakamaru Y, Hoshino K, Fujiwara K, Homma A. Short-term hearing prognosis of ossiculoplasty in pars flaccida cholesteatoma using the EAONO/JOS staging system. J Int Adv Otol 2019; 15:2–7.
  29. Jung KH, Cho YS, Hong SH, Chung WH, Lee GJ, Hong SD. Quality-of-life assessment after primary and revision ear surgery using the chronic ear survey. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 136:358–365.
  30. ten Tije FA, Pauw RJ, Braspenning JC, et al. Uniform registration agreements on cholesteatoma care. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41:1094–1101.

MeSH Term

Cholesteatoma, Middle Ear
Humans
Nigeria
Prognosis
Recidivism
Retrospective Studies

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cholesteatomasurgeryJOSEAONO-JOSSTAMCOclassificationsresidualFUprognosticvaluerecurrentAEstudyingdiseaseCholesteatomaseverityidentifyfactorsprimaryoutcomemeasuresthreeFU > 52 weeksimaginggroupfoundsignificantstagingoccurrenceageOBJECTIVE:assessJapaneseOtologicalSocietypredictingacquiredinfluencewelladverseeventsMETHOD:retrospectivechartreviewpatientsundergoingtertiaryreferralcenterPrimarybasedgroupsfollow-up:Grouplast-lookmagneticresonancediffusion-weightedBlastoutpatientclinicvisitCFU > 12 weeksCholesteatomatastagedaccordingKaplan-MeiercurvesuseddeterminevariousdeterminingcorrectingRESULTS:confoundercorrelationTypedeterminanthigherassociatedlowerriskCONCLUSION:populationlimitedThreemainconfoundersidentifiedposechallengedevelopinguniversalclassification:typepostponedsystemdevelopedsignificantlycorrelatesstageimplicationsmanagementstrategiesEvaluationLong-termRecidivism:UsingStagingSystems

Similar Articles

Cited By