ranges from 6% to 9%.
7–10
The incidence of residual cho-
lesteatoma is considerably higher and is frequently attrib-
uted to insufficient disease resection or inadequate
exposure.
11–14
As a result, second-look procedures are
often employed to evaluate for residual or recurrent dis-
ease and to perform ossiculoplasty, if indicated.
Whereas the canal wall-up tympanoplasty is associ-
ated with higher recurrence of cholesteatoma, the rou-
tine execution of a second-look procedure is associated
with significant cost and risks of a second procedure.
There also exists significant difference in opinion regard-
ing the optimal surgical strategy.
15
Costs of a second
procedure include cost of the preoperative clinic evalua-
tion, preoperative imaging, procedure, operative time,
perioperative staff and perioperative consumables, post-
operative prescription medications, and postoperative
follow-up clinic visits. Other costs could include patient
loss of productivity during the recovery period and the
opportunity cost of the surgeon’s time. Risks of the pro-
cedure include wound infection, hemorrhage, facial
nerve paralysis, hearing loss, vestibulopathy, and risks
of anesthesia.
To date, no study has investigated outcomes of the
second-look procedure from a cost perspective. Our aim
is to investigate the outcomes and cost of both single-
stage and second-look approaches to cholesteatoma
management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patient Population
This study was reviewed and approved by the Duke Uni-
versity Institutional Review Board. We identified 420 adult and
pediatric patients who underwent a tympanoplasty-
mastoidectomy for cholesteatoma with a single-stage or second-
look operative strategy from 2009 to 2014. During initial screen-
ing, patients were included if they had a canal wall-up (CWU) or
canal wall-down (CWD) primary tympanoplasty-mastoidectomy
for cholesteatoma with or without a second-look procedure.
Patients were excluded if they had history of a prior
tympanoplasty-mastoidectomy, insufficient or incomplete medical
records, or procedure for a diagnosis other than cholesteatoma.
There are two parameters guiding the decision to perform a sec-
ond look. One parameter for a planed second look was if the sur-
geon believed not all cholesteatoma was removed. Another
parameter for a second look was if there was evidence of exces-
sive granulation and/or inflammation in the middle ear. In the
event of excessive inflammation, our surgeons were concerned
that a prosthesis would extrude. In these cases, reconstruction
was planned to be completed at a second-look procedure.
Outcomes
Outcome variables tabulated included procedure approach,
residual or recurrent cholesteatoma, ossicular chain reconstruc-
tion (OCR) frequency, and operative complications. Recurrent
cholesteatoma was defined as having found cholesteatoma in a
new retraction pocket.
3
Residual cholesteatoma was defined as
cholesteatoma found in the middle ear space and secondary to
incomplete disease resection.
3
Audiologic outcomes included
pre-/postoperative and latest visit air bone gap (ABG) and word
recognition scores (WRS). Air conduction and bone conduction
thresholds were tabulated at .5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz.
Cost Analysis
The cost data included charges, direct costs, and indirect
costs for consultation and follow-up visits, surgical procedures,
computed tomography (CT) scans of the temporal bones, and
audiology visits. Our financial services office defined charges as
the amount billed to the patient or insurance payor for hospital
services. Specific cost and charge definitions for each component
of care are used internally within our hospital finance depart-
ment. Total cost includes both direct costs and indirect costs.
Direct costs are a product of a variable direct cost and fixed
direct cost. These cost types are directly related to patient care,
but variable direct costs, such as supplies and direct nursing
care, fluctuate with patient volume. Fixed direct costs (e.g., nurse
managers, depreciation of medical equipment) do not fluctuate to
the same degree. Indirect costs include costs not directly related
to patient care but relevant to the upkeep of the hospital and
facilities (e.g., administrative salary, utilities, grounds landscap-
ing, building depreciation). When performing the cost analysis
comparing patients who have had a second-look procedure versus
those who did not, we used charges to set the perspective from
that of a patient or insurance payor. We did not account for the
probability of complications or the cost of managing these compli-
cations in our cost analysis.
Statistics
Statistical analyses were completed using the JMP Pro 11
software suite (Cary, NC). Two-by-two contingency tables were
created, and analysis of variance and Fisher’s exact tests were
performed as appropriate.
P
values were reported with statisti-
cal significance fixed at
P
5
0.05. Statistical analysis was
reviewed and approved by a statistician.
RESULTS
We reviewed 420 patients who presented for a
tympanoplasty-mastoidectomy at our institution. Of these
patients, 314 were excluded and 106 were included in
subsequent analyses. Of the included cases, 65 (61.3%)
were male and 76 (71.7%) were of adult age, with an
average age 36.5 years and range of 2 to 90 years old.
The most common initial surgical approach was CWU
with 80 (75.5%), followed by 19 (17.9%) CWD, six (5.6%)
tympanoplasty only, and one (0.94%) transcanal.
For subsequent analyses, we focused on the 80
patients who underwent a CWU approach. Of these
patients, 46 (57.5%) had a planned second-look proce-
dure and 34 (42.5%) did not. When comparing CWU
patients who had a planned second look versus no
planned second look, there was no significant difference
in any demographic variable, including age, % male gen-
der, and ear sidedness.
In CWU patients who had a planned second-look
strategy, 22 (47.8%) had cholesteatoma identified at
their second-look procedure. At the second-look proce-
dure, two (4.35% of second-look patients; 2.5% of all
CWU cases) had recurrent cholesteatoma, and 20 (43.5%
of second-look patients; 25% of all CWU cases) had resid-
ual cholesteatoma. In CWU patients who had no
planned second look, four (7.5%) patients had an unanti-
cipated second-look procedure frequency for clinical find-
ings, suggestive of recurrent disease on a follow-up
examination. All four of these patients had recurrent
Crowson et al.: Second-Look Tympanoplasty-Mastoidectomy
100




