Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes for subjects who underwent middle cranial fossa (MCF) or transmastoid (TM) repair of superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD).
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: Quaternary-care, academic neurotology practice.
METHODS: Subjects who underwent MCF or TM repair of SSCD between December 1999 and April 2023 were identified. Main outcome measures included demographic data, length of surgery and hospital stay, clinical presentation, and audiometric testing.
RESULTS: Ninety-three subjects (97 ears) who underwent surgery for SSCD met inclusion criteria: 58.8% (57) via MCF, 39.2% (38) via TM, and 2.0% (2) via TM + MCF. Median operative time was shorter for the TM (35) compared to the MCF (29) approach (118 vs 151 minutes, P < .001). Additionally, median hospital stays were shorter for TM (36) compared to the MCF (56) approach (15.3 vs 67.7 hours, P < .001). Overall, 92% (49/53) of MCF and 92% (33/36) of TM surgeries resulted in an improvement or resolution of one or more symptoms (P = .84). There was no significant preoperative to postoperative change in the median air conduction pure-tone average (PTA), air-bone gap, or word recognition score in both the MCF and TM groups (P > .05). Improvements of >10 dB in the pre- to postoperative absolute change in bone conduction PTA were noted in 3 subjects in the MCF group and 4 subjects in the TM group (P = .49).
CONCLUSIONS: The TM approach for SSCD demonstrates shorter operative times and length of hospital stay. The TM and MCF approaches have comparable audiometric and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: Quaternary-care, academic neurotology practice.
METHODS: Subjects who underwent MCF or TM repair of SSCD between December 1999 and April 2023 were identified. Main outcome measures included demographic data, length of surgery and hospital stay, clinical presentation, and audiometric testing.
RESULTS: Ninety-three subjects (97 ears) who underwent surgery for SSCD met inclusion criteria: 58.8% (57) via MCF, 39.2% (38) via TM, and 2.0% (2) via TM + MCF. Median operative time was shorter for the TM (35) compared to the MCF (29) approach (118 vs 151 minutes, P < .001). Additionally, median hospital stays were shorter for TM (36) compared to the MCF (56) approach (15.3 vs 67.7 hours, P < .001). Overall, 92% (49/53) of MCF and 92% (33/36) of TM surgeries resulted in an improvement or resolution of one or more symptoms (P = .84). There was no significant preoperative to postoperative change in the median air conduction pure-tone average (PTA), air-bone gap, or word recognition score in both the MCF and TM groups (P > .05). Improvements of >10 dB in the pre- to postoperative absolute change in bone conduction PTA were noted in 3 subjects in the MCF group and 4 subjects in the TM group (P = .49).
CONCLUSIONS: The TM approach for SSCD demonstrates shorter operative times and length of hospital stay. The TM and MCF approaches have comparable audiometric and clinical outcomes.
摘要：
目的：比较接受中颅窝（MCF）或经乳突（TM）修复上半规管裂开（SSCD）的受试者的结果。
方法：回顾性队列研究。
方法：第四纪护理，学术神经学实践。
方法：确定了在1999年12月至2023年4月之间接受SSCD的MCF或TM修复的受试者。主要结果指标包括人口统计数据，手术时间和住院时间，临床表现,和听力测试。
结果：接受SSCD手术的93名受试者（97耳）符合纳入标准：58.8％（57）通过MCF，39.2%(38)通过TM，和2.0%（2）通过TM+MCF。与MCF（29）方法相比，TM（35）的中位手术时间较短（118vs151分钟，P<.001)。此外,与MCF（56）方法相比，TM（36）的中位住院时间较短（15.3vs67.7小时，P<.001)。总的来说,92％（49/53）的MCF和92％（33/36）的TM手术导致一种或多种症状的改善或解决（P=0.84）。中位空气传导纯音平均值（PTA）术前到术后无明显变化，空气-骨骼间隙，MCF和TM组的单词识别得分(P>.05)。在MCF组中的3名受试者和TM组中的4名受试者中，骨传导PTA的前至术后绝对变化改善>10dB（P=0.49）。
结论：用于SSCD的TM方法显示出更短的手术时间和住院时间。TM和MCF方法具有相当的听力测量和临床结果。
方法：回顾性队列研究。
方法：第四纪护理，学术神经学实践。
方法：确定了在1999年12月至2023年4月之间接受SSCD的MCF或TM修复的受试者。主要结果指标包括人口统计数据，手术时间和住院时间，临床表现,和听力测试。
结果：接受SSCD手术的93名受试者（97耳）符合纳入标准：58.8％（57）通过MCF，39.2%(38)通过TM，和2.0%（2）通过TM+MCF。与MCF（29）方法相比，TM（35）的中位手术时间较短（118vs151分钟，P<.001)。此外,与MCF（56）方法相比，TM（36）的中位住院时间较短（15.3vs67.7小时，P<.001)。总的来说,92％（49/53）的MCF和92％（33/36）的TM手术导致一种或多种症状的改善或解决（P=0.84）。中位空气传导纯音平均值（PTA）术前到术后无明显变化，空气-骨骼间隙，MCF和TM组的单词识别得分(P>.05)。在MCF组中的3名受试者和TM组中的4名受试者中，骨传导PTA的前至术后绝对变化改善>10dB（P=0.49）。
结论：用于SSCD的TM方法显示出更短的手术时间和住院时间。TM和MCF方法具有相当的听力测量和临床结果。
