Digital image enhancement may improve sensitivity of cholesteatoma detection during endoscopic ear surgery.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the possible benefits and limitations of the digital image enhancement systems provided by Storz Professional Image Enhancement System (SPIES) during endoscopic ear surgery (EES) for cholesteatoma. An increased detection of cholesteatoma residuals during the final steps of endoscopic surgery using DIE technology was hypothesized. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital. METHODS: A total of 10 questionnaires of 18 intraoperative pictures with equal numbers of cholesteatoma and non-cholesteatoma images, each presented in three different image-enhancing modalities (Clara, Spectra A, Spectra B), were generated. Fifty-one experienced ear surgeons participated to the survey and were randomly assigned to a questionnaire and completed it at two time points. The experts were asked to rate for each picture whether cholesteatoma was present or not. The answers were compared with the histopathological reports. RESULTS: Clara showed the highest accuracy in cholesteatoma detection, followed by Spectra A and lastly Spectra B. In contrast, Spectra B showed the highest sensitivity and Clara the highest specificity, while Spectra A was placed in the middle for both values. Using the Spectra B modality, most responses agreed across the two time points. Ear surgeons assessed the usefulness, as well as preference among image modalities for cholesteatoma surgery, in the following order: Clara, Spectra B, Spectra A. CONCLUSION: Digital enhancement technologies are applicable to EES. After complete cholesteatoma removal, Spectra B showed the highest sensitivity in the detection of cholesteatoma residuals as compared with Clara and Spectra A. Thus, Spectra B may be recommended to avoid missing any cholesteatoma residuals during EES.

Surgical implications of 3D vs 2D endoscopic ear surgery: a case-control study.

PURPOSE: To compare 3D to 2D technology in endoscopic ear surgery (EES); to report surgeons' feedback on the use of 3D in EES; to describe the operative setting for 3D EES. METHODS: A case-control study on EES was performed at a tertiary university center. All consecutive cases of 3D EES (case group) were matched to a control group operated with the standard 2D technique. Data on surgical approach, type of surgery, operative time, outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups. After each surgery, the operating surgeons were asked to give a feedback on the use of 3D endoscopy, filling in a questionnaire based on 5-point Likert scales. RESULTS: None of the 3D procedures was switched to 2D. Nor intraoperative or long-term complications were recorded. The operative time was similar in both groups. Postoperative hearing function did not show any statistically significant difference between 3 and 2D patients. Ninety-six percent of participants agreed or strongly agreed on better views of anatomy and pathology with the 3D technique. Discomfort induced by 3D vision was rarely reported. CONCLUSION: Surgical and functional results from EES respectively performed with 3D and 2D systems are overall similar, suggesting that both techniques are safe and effective. According to the surgeons' feedback, 3D provides better depth perception and improved view of anatomy and pathology. Several surgeons are willing to use the 3D system for future EES. To guarantee the best 3D EES experience, the setting in the operating room plays a crucial role.