Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2025
Endaural Endoscopic Atticoantrotomy Retrograde Mastoidectomy using a Constant Suction Bone-drilling Technique
Published on: May 23, 2021
Complication Rates in Osteotome and Drill Techniques in External Auditory Canal Exostoses: A Systematic Review and
Austin R Swisher1, Priyanka Singh2, Peter Debbaneh3
1Riverside School of Medicine, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Objectives:
To assess and compare complication rates of symptomatic external auditory canal (EAC) exostoses treated with drill versus osteotome canalplasty.
Databases Reviewed:
PubMed/Medline, OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and standardized bias assessment using the JBI critical appraisal checklist was performed. Studies containing original outcome data on drill and osteotome canalplasty were included. The primary study outcome was complication rates.
Results:
Fifteen studies were included, encompassing 1399 total patients (1788 ears) with 530 and 1258 ears in the osteotome and drill groups, respectively. Ten studies used a drill, 2 used an osteotome, and 3 used both. The most frequently reported complications were tympanic membrane (TM) perforation (osteotome group: 5.3% [95% CI: 1.7%-10.9%]; drill group: 3.8% [1.5%-7.1%]), sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) (0.69% [0.07%-1.9%]; 4.3% [2.2%-7.0%]), and postoperative stenosis (1.1% [0.0005%-4.3%]; 4.1% [1.9%-7.0%]). Use of the osteotome was associated with a lower rate of SNHL (P < .05) and stenosis (P < .05), and a higher rate of TM perforation (P < .05). Heterogeneity of the studies included in the analyzed complications ranged from moderate to high. Level of evidence in the included studies ranged from 2b to 4 and all studies had an overall low risk of bias.
Conclusion:
While an osteotome technique may increase the risk of TM perforation, drill canaloplasty may increase the risk of SNHL and postoperative stenosis in EAC exostectomy. The exact quantity of hearing loss could not be definitively evaluated. Additional research with participant randomization is needed to assess clinical efficacy.
Level Of Evidence:
Level 8.
