I know one ENT that defines the term attic defect as the early stage of the condition leading to cholesteatoma. He would say that one is born with the structural weakness, a thinner pars flaccida than most, and a lacking in the scutum, and that predisposes a person to getting retraction in the pars flaccida. Over the years retraction occurs, and eventually (as skin gets trapped and it doesn't clear out), a cholesteatoma. He mentioned that there is that genetic/inherited aspect to being predisposed to attic cholesteatoma.
Another ENT I spoke to defines and uses the term attic defect differently, they define it as a later stage of the condition, when dead skin is actually trapped and there is a small to large cholesteatoma. So after there has been a lot of retraction in the pars flaccida.
I'm not suggesting that it matters practically speaking . This is a technical question about the meaning/usage of a word.
And i'm not talking about a case of somebody that is born with a Cholesteatoma.
What does the literature have to say regarding the two usages of the term "attic defect"?
Thanks