Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T14:52:06.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The relationship between dimensions of the Eustachian tube and acquired attic cholesteatoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2022

E A Cetinkaya*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
A Yavuz
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology and Imaging, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
G Ozturk
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
S Ay
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology and Imaging, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
D Aydenizoz
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
O T Selcuk
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
H Eyigor
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Erdem Atalay Cetinkaya, KBB Klinigi, SBÜ Antalya Eğitim Araştırma Hastanesi, Antalya, Turkey E-mail: drerdemcetinkaya@gmail.com Fax: +90 242 249 44 00
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study investigated the relationship between physical dimensions of the Eustachian tube and the emergence of primary attic cholesteatoma.

Methods

A total of 31 patients with unilateral attic cholesteatoma were selected for radiological comparison. Standard point measurements as well as specific measurements were performed using imaging software. The length, narrowest diameter and bony segment volume, and pharyngeal orifice diameter of both sides of the Eustachian tube (attic cholesteatoma and healthy control ears) were measured and compared.

Results

Comparison of the values did not reveal any statistically significant difference between the attic cholesteatoma ears and the healthy control ears in terms of: Eustachian tube height, narrowest diameter, bony segment volume or pharyngeal orifice diameter.

Conclusion

No statistically significant difference was found between the cholesteatoma ears and the healthy control ears in terms of the osseous Eustachian tube size. The findings indicate that the Eustachian tube bony segment dimensions and pharyngeal orifice diameter are not factors in attic cholesteatoma development.

Information

Type
Main Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The length of the Eustachian tube bony segment was obtained from axial-oblique computed tomography images acquired by multiplanar reconstruction; the callipers were manually located at the joint of fibrocartilaginous-bony components and the tympanic orifice of the Eustachian tube.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. The Eustachian tube's narrowest diameter was measured manually at the level of the joint between fibrocartilaginous and bony segments. (a) The adjusted axial computed tomography images were used (the craniocaudal levels of both middle-ear structures were equalised). (b) For a precise measurement, images were magnified where necessary to ensure correct calliper positioning.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. The volume of the Eustachian tube bony segment was calculated by Myrian software after manual indications of the diameter, and the beginning and end of the bony segment. The anatomical space involved, identified through volumetric calculation, was coloured by the software, and necessary corrections were made by the authors for full coverage of the structure.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. The diameter of the Eustachian tube's pharyngeal orifice was calculated manually, the callipers were localised by the authors, and the distance between the callipers was supplied by the software. The segments with a maximum diameter near the pharyngeal orifice were captured.

Figure 4

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for each ET dimension*

Figure 5

Table 2. Paired samples t-test analysis of differences between study and control ears