Cargando…

Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment

BACKGROUND: Superior canal dehiscence (SCD) is a benign condition in which a surgical treatment may be considered depending on the patients’ tolerance of their symptoms. In this study, we aim to identify driving factors behind the patients’ choice of a surgical management over watchful waiting. METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benamira, Lina Zahra, Maniakas, Anastasios, Alzahrani, Musaed, Saliba, Issam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elmer Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780478
http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2105w
_version_ 1782360954017677312
author Benamira, Lina Zahra
Maniakas, Anastasios
Alzahrani, Musaed
Saliba, Issam
author_facet Benamira, Lina Zahra
Maniakas, Anastasios
Alzahrani, Musaed
Saliba, Issam
author_sort Benamira, Lina Zahra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Superior canal dehiscence (SCD) is a benign condition in which a surgical treatment may be considered depending on the patients’ tolerance of their symptoms. In this study, we aim to identify driving factors behind the patients’ choice of a surgical management over watchful waiting. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with cochlear and/or vestibular symptoms and a temporal bone high-resolution CT (HRCT) scan showing SCD were included in the study. All patients have been offered either surgical management or watchful waiting. RESULTS: Of these, 28 elected surgery and 34 declined it. The operated group showed more cochlear (6.6 vs. 2.4) symptoms than the non-operated group (P < 0.001) except for hypoacousis, but no significant difference (P = 0.059) was found for the number of vestibular symptoms between both groups (3.4 vs. 1.1). Footstep and eating hyperacousis were both present in 57.1% of operated vs. 3% of non-operated patients (P < 0.001). Oscillopsia with effort and with walking was found in 50% and 35.7% of operated patients, respectively, but none in the non-operated group (P < 0.001). Hearing tuning fork at malleolus and Valsalva and pneumatic speculum induced vertigo showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, P = 0.010 respectively). Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) thresholds, air and bone conduction thresholds, and mean air-bone gap (ABG) were similar in the two populations (P > 0.05). The average dehiscence size was 4.7 mm (2.0 - 8.0 mm) and 3.8 mm (1.3 - 7.7 mm) in the operated and non-operated patients, respectively (P = 0.421). CONCLUSIONS: The natures of cochleovestibular signs and symptoms were shown to be key factors in patients’ choice of a surgical management whereas paraclinical tests seem to be less significant in the patients’ decision for a surgical treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4356090
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elmer Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43560902015-03-16 Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment Benamira, Lina Zahra Maniakas, Anastasios Alzahrani, Musaed Saliba, Issam J Clin Med Res Original Article BACKGROUND: Superior canal dehiscence (SCD) is a benign condition in which a surgical treatment may be considered depending on the patients’ tolerance of their symptoms. In this study, we aim to identify driving factors behind the patients’ choice of a surgical management over watchful waiting. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with cochlear and/or vestibular symptoms and a temporal bone high-resolution CT (HRCT) scan showing SCD were included in the study. All patients have been offered either surgical management or watchful waiting. RESULTS: Of these, 28 elected surgery and 34 declined it. The operated group showed more cochlear (6.6 vs. 2.4) symptoms than the non-operated group (P < 0.001) except for hypoacousis, but no significant difference (P = 0.059) was found for the number of vestibular symptoms between both groups (3.4 vs. 1.1). Footstep and eating hyperacousis were both present in 57.1% of operated vs. 3% of non-operated patients (P < 0.001). Oscillopsia with effort and with walking was found in 50% and 35.7% of operated patients, respectively, but none in the non-operated group (P < 0.001). Hearing tuning fork at malleolus and Valsalva and pneumatic speculum induced vertigo showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, P = 0.010 respectively). Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) thresholds, air and bone conduction thresholds, and mean air-bone gap (ABG) were similar in the two populations (P > 0.05). The average dehiscence size was 4.7 mm (2.0 - 8.0 mm) and 3.8 mm (1.3 - 7.7 mm) in the operated and non-operated patients, respectively (P = 0.421). CONCLUSIONS: The natures of cochleovestibular signs and symptoms were shown to be key factors in patients’ choice of a surgical management whereas paraclinical tests seem to be less significant in the patients’ decision for a surgical treatment. Elmer Press 2015-05 2015-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4356090/ /pubmed/25780478 http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2105w Text en Copyright 2015, Benamira et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Benamira, Lina Zahra
Maniakas, Anastasios
Alzahrani, Musaed
Saliba, Issam
Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment
title Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment
title_full Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment
title_fullStr Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment
title_full_unstemmed Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment
title_short Common Features in Patients With Superior Canal Dehiscence Declining Surgical Treatment
title_sort common features in patients with superior canal dehiscence declining surgical treatment
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780478
http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2105w
work_keys_str_mv AT benamiralinazahra commonfeaturesinpatientswithsuperiorcanaldehiscencedecliningsurgicaltreatment
AT maniakasanastasios commonfeaturesinpatientswithsuperiorcanaldehiscencedecliningsurgicaltreatment
AT alzahranimusaed commonfeaturesinpatientswithsuperiorcanaldehiscencedecliningsurgicaltreatment
AT salibaissam commonfeaturesinpatientswithsuperiorcanaldehiscencedecliningsurgicaltreatment