ANSWER AND REASONINGA. Otology-led definitive surgery planned to eradicate disease while protecting the labyrinth and residual hearing
A lateral-canal fistula is an advanced complication. The operative plan must balance complete disease control against the risk of opening or destabilising the membranous labyrinth; this is not a routine office-management decision.
Why every option is right or wrong
A. Otology-led definitive surgery planned to eradicate disease while protecting the labyrinth and residual hearing: A lateral-canal fistula is an advanced complication. The operative plan must balance complete disease control against the risk of opening or destabilising the membranous labyrinth; this is not a routine office-management decision.
B. Repeated microsuction and long-term observation: This does not control progressive destructive disease or protect against further labyrinthine, facial-nerve or intracranial complications.
C. Immediate labyrinthectomy: A destructive hearing-sacrificing procedure is not automatically justified when hearing is serviceable and disease may be managed with labyrinth-preserving technique.
D. Hearing aid fitting before considering surgery: Amplification may address disability but does not treat the erosive pathology.
E. Empirical systemic steroids: Steroids do not eradicate keratinising middle-ear disease.
What if the scenario changed?
If the ear were already profoundly deaf with extensive uncontrolled disease, a hearing-sacrificing approach might be discussed after specialist counselling.