Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-fg9bn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T03:55:17.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hearing results after stapedotomy for otosclerosis: comparison of prosthesis variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2021

H Odat Open the ORCID record for H Odat [Opens in a new window] ,
Y Kanaan ,
M Alali  and
M Al-Qudah
H Odat*
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University of Science and Technology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan
Y Kanaan
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University of Science and Technology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan
M Alali
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University of Science and Technology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan
M Al-Qudah
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University of Science and Technology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Haitham Odat, Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University of Science and Technology, King Abdullah University Hospital, PO Box 3030, Irbid, Jordan E-mail: dr.haithamodat@gmail.com Fax: +962 2709 5123 96
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the influence of different piston variables on hearing following stapedotomy.

Methods

Data were analysed in groups according to: piston material (titanium vs fluoroplastic), shaft diameter (0.4 mm vs 0.5 mm) and crimping style (manual crimping vs self-crimping). Pre- and post-operative average air–bone gap, air–bone gap difference, success rate and operative time were evaluated.

Results and conclusion

Fifty-one patients (58 ears) were included. A post-operative air–bone gap of 10 dB or lower was achieved in 44 cases, with a success rate of 75.9 per cent; 52 cases (89.7 per cent) had an air–bone gap of 20 dB or lower. The success rate was higher, but not significantly, in fluoroplastic than in titanium pistons (85 per cent vs 70 per cent). Pistons with shaft diameters of 0.5 mm and 0.4 mm had success rates of 79 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively. No significant differences were found for any audiometric parameters. There were no significant differences between manual crimping and self-crimping pistons in terms of audiometric results or success rate.

Keywords

OtosclerosisStapes SurgeryHearingAudiometry

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 28 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Dr H Odat takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Declau, F, Van Spaendonck, M, Timmermans, JP, Michaels, L, Liang, J, Qiu, JP et al. Prevalence of otosclerosis in an unselected series of temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
wGordon, MA. The genetics of otosclerosis: a review. Am J Otol 1989;10:426–38Google Scholar
Cureoglu, S, Schachern, PA, Ferlito, A, Rinaldo, A, Tsuprun, V, Paparella, MM. Otosclerosis: etiopathogenesis and histopathology. Am J Otolaryngol 1989;27:334–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauwen, I, Van Camp, G. The etiology of otosclerosis: a combination of genes and environment. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1195–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ealy, M, Smith, RJ. Otosclerosis. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;70:122–9Google ScholarPubMed
Vincent, R, Sperling, NM, Oates, J, Jindal, M. Surgical findings and long-term hearing results in 3,050 stapedotomies for primary otosclerosis: a prospective study with the otology-neurotology database. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:S25–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, HP. The evolution of otosclerosis surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1993;26:323–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persson, P, Harder, H, Magnuson, B. Hearing results in otosclerosis surgery after partial stapedectomy, total stapedectomy and stapedotomy. Acta Otolaryngol 1997;117:94–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, HCS, Agrawal, SK, Parnes, LS. Stapedectomy versus stapedotomy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2018;51:375–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, TM. Comparison of small fenestra and total stapedectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1981;90:633–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Somers, T, Vercruysse, JP, Zarowski, A, Verstreken, M, Offeciers, E. Stapedotomy with microdrill or carbon dioxide laser: influence on inner ear function. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;115:880–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gjuric, M. Microdrill versus perforator for stapedotomy. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1990;15:411–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchese, MR, Cianfrone, F, Passali, GC, Paludetti, G. Hearing results after stapedotomy: role of the prosthesis diameter. Audiol Neurootol 2007;12:221–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:186–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhooge, I, Desmedt, S, Maly, T, Loose, D, Van Hoecke, H. Long-term hearing results of stapedotomy: analysis of factors affecting outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018;275:1111–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laske, RD, Röösli, C, Chatzimichalis, MV, Sim, JH, Huber, AM. The influence of prosthesis diameter in stapes surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:520–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruckenstein, MJ, Nicolli, EA. Is there a “best” stapes prosthesis? Laryngoscope 2012;122:2123–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, BL, Kennedy, RJ, Shelton, C. Stapedectomy outcomes: titanium versus Teflon wire prosthesis. Laryngoscope 2005;115:249–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casale, M, De Franco, A, Salvinelli, F, Piazza, F, Vincenzi, A, Zini, C. Hearing results in stapes surgery using two different prosthesis. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2003;124:255–8Google ScholarPubMed
Wegner, I, Eldaebes, MM, Landry, TG, Grolman, W, Bance, ML. The effect of piston diameter in stapedotomy for otosclerosis: a temporal bone model. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1497–502CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hüttenbrink, KB. Biomechanics of stapesplasty: a review. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:548–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegner, I, Verhagen, JJ, Stegeman, I, Vincent, R, Grolman, W. A systematic review of the effect of piston diameter in stapes surgery for otosclerosis on hearing results. Laryngoscope 2016;126:182–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gristwood, RE, Venables, WN. Effects of fenestra size and piston diameter on the outcome of stapes surgery for clinical otosclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2011;120:363–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sennaroğlu, L, Unal, OF, Sennaroğlu, G, Gürsel, B, Belgin, E. Effect of teflon piston diameter on hearing result after stapedotomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124:279–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shabana, YK, Ghonim, MR, Pedersen, CB. Stapedotomy: does prosthesis diameter affect outcome? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999;24:91–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavaliere, M, Ricciardiello, F, Mesolella, M, Iengo, M. Stapedotomy: functional results with different diameter prostheses. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2012;74:93–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornung, JA, Brase, C, Zenk, J, Iro, H. Results obtained with a new superelastic nitinol stapes prosthesis in stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1415–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber, AM, Schrepfer, T, Eiber, A. Clinical evaluation of the NiTiBOND stapes prosthesis, an optimized shape memory alloy design. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:132–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegner, I, Swartz, JE, Bance, ML, Grolman, W. A systematic review of the effect of different crimping techniques in stapes surgery for otosclerosis. Laryngoscope 2016;126:1207–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tange, RA, Grolman, W. An analysis of the air-bone gap closure obtained by a crimping and a non-crimping titanium stapes prosthesis in otosclerosis. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008;35:181–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrötzlmair, F, Suchan, F, Kisser, U, Hempel, JM, Sroka, R, Müller, J. Promising clinical results of an innovative self-crimping stapes prosthesis in otosclerosis surgery. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:1571–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangham, CA Jr. Titanium CliP piston versus platinum-ribbon Teflon piston: piston and fenestra size affect air-bone gap. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:8–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed