MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415188451 · doi:10.3390/biomedicines13102506

Incidence Rate and Determinants of Recurrent Cholesteatoma Following Surgical Management: A Systematic Review, Subgroup, and Meta-Regression Analysis

2025· review· en· W4415188451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saqr Massoud, Raed Farhat, Uday Abd Elhadi, Rifat Awawde, Shlomo Merchavy, Alaa Safia

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedicines · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCholesteatomaMiddle earSurgical proceduresIncidence (geometry)Surgical planningEar canalMastoidectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Cholesteatoma is a destructive middle ear pathology that can cause chronic infection, ossicular erosion, and hearing loss. While surgical excision is the standard treatment, recurrence remains a major clinical challenge, and comprehensive data on long-term outcomes are limited. This meta-analysis evaluated cholesteatoma recurrence rates following surgery, identified clinical and surgical predictors of recurrence, and assessed trends across follow-up durations, techniques, and patient demographics. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for relevant studies (CRD42024550351). Studies reporting postoperative recurrence were included. Data on demographics, surgical approach, cholesteatoma type, and outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Pooled recurrence rates were calculated using random-effects models, and subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to identify predictors. Results: Eighty-four studies comprising 12,819 patients were included. The cholesteatoma recurrence rate showed geographic variability. Recurrence was higher in children (13%) than adults (10%), and in acquired (12%) versus congenital (7%) cholesteatoma. Advanced-stage disease, left-sided lesions, and revision surgeries increased recurrence risk. Canal wall down had lower recurrence (7%) than canal wall up techniques (16%). Adjuncts such as mastoid obliteration, ossicular reconstruction, and planned second-look surgeries reduced recurrence. Cumulative recurrence reached 39% at 15 years and 33% at 25 years. Meta-regression identified age, staged procedures, and second-look surgeries as independent predictors. Conclusions: Cholesteatoma recurrence is influenced by age, surgical approach, and disease severity. CWD procedures and comprehensive surgical planning reduce recurrence risk. Long-term follow-up and standardized outcome definitions are essential to improve monitoring and disease control.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedicinesSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207