HSC Section 8_April 2017

Outcomes of Studies Comparing the CWU Technique and the CWD Technique and Making a Distinction Between Residual and Recurrent Disease Rates. Article No.* CWU/ CWD FU (mo.) CWU Technique No. (%) CWD Technique No. (%) Risk Difference (95% CI) Relative Risk (95% CI) Residual Recurrent Residual Recurrent Residual Recurrent Residual Recurrent Roden (1996) 18 97 54/43 6 to 60 11 (20.4%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.7%) 0 (0%) 16% (3 to 28%) 0% (0%) 4.4 (1.0 to 8.7) n/a Stankovic (2007) 15 658 360/298 36 11 (3.1%) 17 (4.7%) 21 (7.0%) 45 (15.1%) 2 4% ( 2 7 to 1%) 2 10% ( 2 15 to 6%) 0.43 (0.21 to 0.88) 0.31 (0.18 to 0.53) Declerck (2010) 4 2nd look 88 74/14 CWU: 12 CWD: 14 13 (17.6%) 6 (8.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 18% (9 to 26%) 8% (2 to 14%) n/a n/a CI 5 confidence interval; CWD 5 canal wall down; CWU 5 canal wall up; FU 5 follow-up; mo. 5 months; No. 5 Number; n/a 5 not available/applicable; No.* 5 number of operated ears.

Stankovic (2007) 15 658 360/298 3 > 16 28 (7.8) 66 (22.1) 2 14 ( 2 20 to 2 9%) < .001 0.35 (0.23 to 0.53) Declerck (2010) 4 2nd look 88 74/14 1 to 1.2 18 to 84 19 (25.7) 0 (0) 26 (16 to 36%) .03 n/a Total 165 117/48 2.5 18 to 84 21(18.9) § 0 (0) 19 (12 to 26%) .001 n/a *Adult cases only.

Brown (1982) 6 1044 628/416 10 15 to 75 214 (34.1) 54 (13) 21 (16 to 26%) < .001 2.6 (2.0 to 3.4) Roden (1996) 18 97 54/43 0.5 to 5 19 to 85 11 (20.4) 2 (4.7) 16 (3 to 28%) .03 4.4 (1.0 to 18.7) Nyrop (1997) 7 58 41/17 10 15 to 77 25 (61.0) 0 (0) 61 (46 to 76%) < .001 n/a

Palmgren (1979) 20 194 50/144 9.4 n/a † n/a (15) (6%) 9 (n/a) NS ‡ 2.5 (n/a)

Relative Risk (95 % CI)

Ajalloueyan (2006) 19 108 36/72 10 16 to 81 6 (16.7) 4 (5.6) 11 ( 2 2 to 24%) .08 3.0 (0.9 to 10.0)

Study Population Residual/Recurrent Risk No. of Ears* CWU/CWD Follow-up (mean, yr.) Age Range (yr.) CWU No. (%) CWD No. (%) Absolute Risk Reduction % (95% CI) P Value

† No exact age range reported. Mean ages for the youngest 50 and the oldest 50 patients: 21 and 55 years, respectively. ‡ No exact patient numbers reported. § 111 patients had follow-up. CI 5 confidence interval; CWD 5 canal wall down; CWU 5 canal wall up; No. 5 number; n/a 5 not available/applicable; NS 5 not significant; yr. 5 year. TABLE III.

TABLE II.

Results of Studies Comparing Disease Recidivism Rates Between the CWU Technique and the CWD Technique.

Article

Laryngoscope 126: April 2016

Kerckhoffs et al.: A Review on Cholesteatoma Recidivism After CWU and CWD

109