ObjectiveTo reevaluate the validity of the soft-wall reconstruction method of the posterior meatal wall in surgeries for cholesteatomas.Study DesignRetrospective case review.PatientsSubjects consisted of 52 patients (54 ears) with fresh cholesteatoma (excluding residual or recurrent cholesteatomas) who were operated by the soft-wall reconstruction method in our clinic and observed for more than 2 years after surgery, and 29 patients (29 ears) who were operated by canal-wall-down and open method.Main Outcome MeasuresPostoperative period required for complete epithelization (dry ear), hearing, and incidence of the residual and recurrent cholesteatomas were compared with those operated by canal-wall-down and open method. The postoperative conditions of the soft posterior meatal wall was also investigated.ResultsPostoperative period to be a dry ear was significantly shorter in the soft-wall reconstruction group than in the canal-wall-down and open group (Student'st-test,t= 2.99,p< 0.01). There was no significant difference in the postoperative hearing or incidence of residual and recurrent cholesteatomas between the two groups.ConclusionsThese results indicate that the soft-wall reconstruction method seems more versatile than the canal-wall-down and open method for cholesteatoma surgery.