Postoperative Patient Reported Outcomes After Cholesteatoma Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Results and success measures of cholesteatoma surgery are generally described using objective data whereas subjective data are mostly lacking. Patients experiences and complaints are becoming more important alongside clinical and audiometric outcome measures in cholesteatoma care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the course of patient-reported complaints, the impact of complaints, audiometric measures and the stability of audiometric measures, and complaints over time after primary and recurrent/residual cholesteatoma surgery. METHODS: Postoperative patients were prospectively included and divided into primary acquired and recurrent/residual cholesteatoma. The EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D-3L), Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam (OQUA), and the Speech Spatial Questionnaire (SSQ) were completed by 144 patients up to 2 years postoperative. Patient-reported complaints divided in eight separate domains, postoperative hearing and impact on daily life were longitudinally assessed by means of linear mixed models. RESULTS: Hearing loss and tinnitus are the most reported postoperative complaints over time. Patient-reported loss of taste and the impact of all complaints decline over time. All other patient-reported complaints remain stable over time, only itch complaints fluctuate. Primary cholesteatoma patients score significantly higher on hearing loss complaints compared with recurrent/residual patients although they have comparable mean audiometric hearing loss. Furthermore, pure-tone hearing threshold, instead of asymmetric hearing loss, is correlated with the localization domain of the SSQ. CONCLUSION: This study provides important insights in the course of complaints and its impact on daily life after cholesteatoma surgery. Overall, the postoperative patient-reported complaints after cholesteatoma surgery are generally low in the studied population.

Practical applicability of the STAMCO and ChOLE classification in cholesteatoma care.

BACKGROUND: To compare cholesteatoma care internationally and to evaluate outcomes, ear surgeons must use the same terminology. However, a clear universal definition on how to describe the extension, destruction and accompanying morbidity caused by the cholesteatoma is lacking. The practical applicability by means of interrater agreement is assessed for the STAMCO and the ChOLE classification. METHODS: A total of 134 adult patients derived from the nationwide multicentre study in the Netherlands, entitled Dutch Cholesteatoma Data (DCD) were included. Retrospective analysis of 134 surgical reports according to the STAMCO and ChOLE classification for localisation/extension of the cholesteatoma, complication status and ossicular chain status. Both the percentage agreement and the interrater agreement were determined for each item of the classifications and interrater agreement was compared between the classifications as a whole. RESULTS: Differences in interrater agreement were found for both the localisation/extension of the cholesteatoma and ossicular chain status. STAMCO classification derived from the surgical report scored better on the localisation/extension of the cholesteatoma, whereas the ChOLE classification derived from the surgical report scored better on the status of the ossicular chain. In both classifications, complication status had a low agreement level but was also poorly registered in the surgical reports. CONCLUSION: Both STAMCO and ChOLE will be beneficial in uniform registration of cholesteatoma pathology in practice. Modifications proposed for both classifications may make them even more practical applicable in the future. A common denominator obtained from these two classifications may be incorporated in a standardised surgical report to facilitate evaluation which make outcomes transferable towards both classifications.

Evaluation of the SAMEO-ATO surgical classification in a Dutch cohort.

PURPOSE: Differences in the definition and classification of cholesteatoma hinders comparing of surgical outcomes of cholesteatoma. Uniform registration is necessary to allow investigators to share and compare their findings. For many years surgical cholesteatoma procedures were divided into two main groups: canal wall up mastoidectomy (CWU) and canal wall down mastoidectomy (CWD). Recently, mastoid obliteration can be added to both procedures. Because of great variation within these main groups, the International Otology Outcome Group (IOOG) proposed the new SAMEO-ATO classification system to categorize tympanomastoid operations. The aim of our study was to correlate the mastoid bone extirpation (M-stage) with the contemporary (CWU, CWD with or without obliteration) system. METHODS: Demographic characteristics and type of performed surgery were registered for 135 cholesteatoma patients from sixteen hospitals, both secondary and tertiary care institutions, across the Netherlands. In addition, the surgical reports were collected, retrospectively classified according to the contemporary system and the new system and compared. Correlations of the outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: In total, there were 112 CWU and 14 CWD (both with or without obliteration) suitable for correlation analysis. Z test for correlation between the M-stage and CWU procedure was significant for M1a and M1b procedure and significant for M2c with the CWD procedure. CONCLUSION: The newly proposed SAMEO-ATO classification seems to be more detailed in the registration of surgical procedures than surgeons currently are used to. All M-stages of the SAMEO-ATO system are correlating well to the standard CWU and CWD except one 'in between' M-stage.

Uniform Registration Agreements on Cholesteatoma Care: A Nationwide Consensus Procedure.

BACKGROUND: To coordinate and align the content for registration of cholesteatoma care. METHODS: Systematic Delphi consensus procedure, consisting three rounds: two written sessions followed by a face-to-face meeting. Before this procedure, input on important patient outcomes was obtained. Consensus was defined as at least 80% agreement by participants. Hundred-thirty-six adult patients who had undergone cholesteatoma surgery and all ENT surgeons of the Dutch ENT Society were invited. The consensus rounds were attended by ENT surgeons with cholesteatoma surgery experience. Feasibility and acceptability of outcome measures and reporting agreements were assessed in round 1 by 150 ENT surgeons. In round 2 definitions were narrowed and context information to interpret outcome measure were questioned. In round 3, the results, amendments, and the open-ended points were discussed to reach agreement. RESULTS: Most important outcome measures are: 1) the presence or absence of a cholesteatoma in the first 5 years after surgical removal of cholesteatoma, 2) hearing level after surgical removal of cholesteatoma, and 3) the documented assessment of patient's complaints with a validated patient reported outcome measures questionnaire (PROM). Furthermore, consensus was reached on the registration of cholesteatoma type (residual/recurrent), localization of cholesteatoma, and reporting of the presence of cholesteatoma in the follow-up. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on the content and method of registration of cholesteatoma care based on patient's and ENT surgeons input. Three outcome measures were defined. National agreements on the method and content of registration will facilitate monitoring and feedback to the ENT surgeon about the cholesteatoma care.