Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-l4t7p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T20:01:43.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lasers in stapes surgery: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2015

E Young ,
A Mitchell-Innes  and
M Jindal
E Young*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Russell Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK
A Mitchell-Innes
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Russell Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK
M Jindal
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Russell Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Ms E Young, ENT Department, Russell Hall Hospital, Dudley DY1 2HQ, UK E-mail: ugm9ery@doctors.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Lasers in stapes surgery are used to divide the anterior and posterior crus of the stapes, divide the stapedius tendon and perforate the footplate. The ideal laser should not penetrate deeply into the perilymph (thereby increasing its temperature). It should be conducted through optical fibres, allowing easy manipulation, and should have good water absorption, equating to high bone ablation efficiency.

Objectives:

This review discusses the various different lasers used in stapes surgery with regard to their properties and suitability for this type of surgery. In particular, the laser parameters used are discussed to facilitate their clinical use.

Keywords

StapesLasersStapes Surgery

Information

Type
Review Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 7 , July 2015 , pp. 627 - 633
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

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

References

1Van de Water T, Staecker H. Basic Science and Clinical Review. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2006Google Scholar
2Frenz, M. Physical characteristics of various lasers used in stapes surgery. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2007;65:237–49Google ScholarPubMed
3Shea, JJ. Fenestration of the oval window. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1958;67:932–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Plester, D. Advances in the microsurgery of the ear during the last ten years [in German]. HNO 1970;18:33–40Google Scholar
5Shea, JJ, Sanabria, F, Smyth, G. Teflon piston operation for otosclerosis. Arch Otolaryngol 1962;76:516–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Escudero, L, Castro, A, Drummond, M, Porto, S, Bozinis, D, Penna, A et al. Argon laser in human tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1979;105:252–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Palva, T. Argon laser in otosclerosis surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 1979;104:153–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Perkins, R. Laser stapedotomy for otosclerosis. Laryngoscope 1980;90:228–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Rauch, S, Bartley, M. Argon laser stapedectomy: comparison to traditional fenestration techniques. Am J Otol 1992;13:556–60Google ScholarPubMed
10Nissen, R. Argon laser in difficult stapedotomy cases. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1669–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Wiet, R, Kubek, D, Lemberg, P, Byskosh, A. A meta-analysis review of revision stapes surgery with argon laser: effectiveness and safety. Am J Otol 1997;18:166–71Google ScholarPubMed
12Gherini, S, Horn, K, Causse, J, McArthur, G. Fiberoptic argon laser stapedotomy: is it safe? Am J Otol 1993;14:283–98Google ScholarPubMed
13Vollrath, M, Schreiner, C. The effects of the argon laser on temperature within the cochlea. Acta Otolaryngol 1982;93:341–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Vollrath, M, Schreiner, C. Influence of argon laser stapedotomy on inner ear function and temperature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1983;91:521–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Schreiner, C, Vollrath, M. Effects of argon laser stapedotomy on cochlear potentials. Acta Otolaryngol 1983;95:47–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Horn, K, Gherini, S, Griffin, G. Argon laser stapedectomy using an endo-otoprobe system. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;102:193–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Hausler, R, Messerli, A, Romano, V, Burkhalter, R, Weber, H, Altermatt, H. Experimental and clinical results of fiberoptic argon laser stapedotomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1996;253:193–200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Buchman, C, Fucci, M, Roberson, J Jr, De La Cruz, A. Comparison of argon and CO2 laser stapedotomy in primary otosclerosis surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 2000;21:227–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Kodali, S, Harvey, S, Prieto, T. Thermal effects of laser stapedectomy in an animal model: CO2 versus KTP. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1445–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Vincent, R, Bittermann, A, Oates, J, Sperling, N, Grolman, W. KTP versus CO2 laser fiber stapedotomy for primary otosclerosis: results of a new comparative series with the otology-neurotology database. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:928–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Vincent, R, Grolman, W, Oates, J, Sperling, N, Rovers, M. A nonrandomized comparison of potassium titanyl phosphate and CO2 laser fiber stapedotomy for primary otosclerosis with the otology-neurotology database. Laryngoscope 2010;120:570–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Lescanne, E, Moriniere, S, Gohler, C, Manceau, A, Beutter, P, Robier, A. Retrospective case study of carbon dioxide laser stapedotomy with lens-based and mirror-based micromanipulators. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:256–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Stucken, E, Brown, K, Selesnick, S. The use of KTP laser in revision stapedectomy. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:1297–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Pratisto, H, Frenz, M, Ith, M, Romano, V, Weber, H, Altermatt, H et al. Temperature and pressure effects during erbium laser stapedotomy. Lasers Surg Med 1996;18:100–83.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Lippert, B, Gottschlich, S, Kulkens, C, Folz, B, Rudert, H, Werner, J. Experimental and clinical results of Er:YAG laser stapedotomy. Lasers Surg Med 2001;28:11–173.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Hausler, R, Schar, PJ, Pratisto, H, Weber, H, Frenz, M. Advantages and dangers of erbium laser application in stapedotomy. Acta Otolaryngol 1999;119:207–13Google ScholarPubMed
27Arnold, A, Ehrenberger, K, Frenz, M, Pratisto, H, Weber, H, Felix, D. Experimental erbium laser surgery in the guinea pig cochlea: its use in the study of afferent cochlear neurotransmitters. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1996;253:460–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Poe, D. Laser-assisted endoscopic stapedectomy: a prospective study. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1–37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Gerard, J-M, Serry, P, Gersdorff, M. Outcome and lack of prognostic factors in stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:290–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Navarrete, M, Boemo, R, Darwish, M, Monzon, J, Rojas, P. Pilot study on the diode laser in stapes surgery [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2010;61:434–6Google ScholarPubMed
31Lesinski, SG, Palmer, A. CO2 laser for otosclerosis: safe energy parameter. Laryngoscope 1989;99(suppl 46):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Jovanovic, S, Schonfeld, U, Scherer, H. New developments in CO2 laser stapedotomy. Med Laser Appl 2002;17:202–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Jovanovic, S. Technical and clinical aspects of ‘one-shot’ CO2 laser stapedotomy. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2007;65:255–66Google Scholar
34Smith, M, Roberson, J. CO2 laser stapedotomy. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;9:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Marchese, M, Scorpecci, A, Cianfrone, F, Paludetti, G. ‘One shot’ CO2 versus Er:YAG laser stapedotomy: is the outcome the same? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:351–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Just, T, Guder, E, Pau, H. Effect of the stapedotomy technique on early post-operative hearing results – preliminary results. Auris Nasus Larynx 2012;39:383–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Shepard, T, Kaylie, D, Danner, C, Deviah, A, Bartels, L. Laser stapedotomy using CO2 laser with flexible wave guide handpiece. Laryngoscope 2009;119(S1):128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Wendt-Nordahl, G, Huckele, S, Honeck, P, Alken, P, Knoll, T, Michel, M et al. Systematic evaluation of a recently introduced 2-micron continuous wave thulium laser for vaporesection of the prostate. J Endourol 2008;22:1041–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Bach, T, Huck, N, Wezel, F, Hacker, A, Gross, A, Michel, M. 70 vs 120 W thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet 2μm continuous-wave laser for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic ex-vivo evaluation. BJU Int 2010;106:368–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Koufman, J, Rees, C, Frazier, W, Kilpatrick, L, Wright, S, Halum, S et al. Office-based laryngeal laser surgery: a review of 443 cases using three wavelengths. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:146–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Ayari-Khalfallah, S, Fuchsmann, C, Froehlich, P. Thulium laser in airway diseases in children. Curr Op Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;16:55–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Bottrill, I, Perrault, D, Pankratov, M, Poe, D. Thulium:YAG laser for stapes surgery: preliminary observations. SPIE Proceedings 1994;2128:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar