Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T22:19:04.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reporting in stapes surgery: are we following the guidelines?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

G J Watson  and
M da Cruz
G J Watson*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
M da Cruz
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Mr G J Watson, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK E-mail: glen.watson@sth.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This paper highlights the importance of reporting air–bone gap closure in stapes surgery according to the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery guidelines and reviews compliance in recent years.

Methods

A retrospective case series was conducted and the outcomes were reviewed. Closure of the air–bone gap was calculated in 204 adult patients using the aforementioned guidelines. Results were recalculated ignoring the Carhart phenomenon to determine any significant difference. Adherence to guidelines was also reported as a secondary outcome.

Results

Ignoring the Carhart phenomenon resulted in 75 per cent over-reporting of successful air–bone gap closure (p < 0.001). Over-reporting occurred in 5.9 per cent of papers, and in 11.8 per cent it was difficult to determine how the results were reached.

Conclusion

Despite the existence of clear guidelines, stapes surgery outcomes are still being over-reported as successful. This can lead to incorrect information being provided to patients during the consent process and makes comparative studies difficult.

Keywords

SurgeryPatient Outcome AssessmentComplianceGuideline

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 479 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

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

Mr G J Watson takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1American 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
2Carhart, R. Clinical application of bone conduction audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 1950;51:798–808Google Scholar
3Gatehouse, S, Browning, GG. A re-examination of the Carhart effect. Br J Audiol 1982;16:215–20Google Scholar
4Badran, K, Gosh, S, Farag, A, Timms, MS. How we do it: switching from mechanical perforation to the CO2 laser; audit results of primary small-fenestra stapedotomy in a district general hospital. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;3:546–9Google Scholar
5Berliner, KI, Doyle, KJ, Goldenberg, RA. Reporting operative hearing results in stapes surgery: does choice of outcome measure make a difference? Am J Otol 1996;17:214–20Google Scholar
6Fiorino, F, Barbieri, F. Reversal of the steps stapedotomy technique with early removal of the posterior crus: early postoperative results: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:359–62Google ScholarPubMed
7Gerlinger, I, Toth, M, Bako, P, Nemeth, A, Pytel, J. KTP-laser stapedotomy with a self-crimping, thermal shape memory Nitinol SMart piston: 1 year follow-up results: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:475–80Google Scholar
8Banerjee, A, Hawthorne, MR, Flood, LM, Martin, FW. Audit of stapedectomy results in a district general hospital. Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:275–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Berenholz, L, Lippy, W, Harell, M. Revision stapedectomy in Israel. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:850–3Google Scholar
10Daniels, RL, Krieger, LW, Lippy, WH. The other ear: findings and results in 1,800 bilateral stapedectomies. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:603–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11De La Cruz, A, Fayad, JN. Revision stapedectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:728–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Lippy, WH, Battista, RA, Berenholz, L, Schuring, AG, Burkey, JM. Twenty-year review of revision stapedectomy. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:560–6Google Scholar
13Lippy, WH, Wingate, J, Burkey, JM, Rizer, FM, Schuring, AG. Stapedectomy revision in elderly patients. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1100–3Google Scholar
14Acar, GO, Kivekas, I, Hanna, BM, Huang, L, Gopen, Q, Poe, DS. Comparison of stapedotomy minus prosthesis, circumferential stapes mobilization, and small fenestra stapedotomy for stapes fixation. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:e123–9Google Scholar
15Arnoldner, C, Schwab, B, Lenarz, T. Clinical results after stapedotomy: a comparison between the erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and the conventional technique. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:458–65Google Scholar
16Bauer, M, Pytel, J, Vona, I, Gerlinger, I. Long-term results of the use of autogenous cortical bone columellas to replace the stapes at stapedectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:671–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Bittermann, AJ, Vincent, R, Rovers, MM, van der Heijden, GJ, Tange, RA, Dreschler, WA et al. A nonrandomized comparison of stapes surgery with and without a vein graft in patients with otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:827–31Google Scholar
18Brase, C, Schwitulla, J, Kunzel, J, Meusel, T, Iro, H, Hornung, J. First experience with the fiber-enabled CO2 laser in stapes surgery and a comparison with the “one-shot” technique. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:1581–5Google Scholar
19Brown, KD, Gantz, BJ. Hearing results after stapedotomy with a nitinol piston prosthesis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:758–62Google Scholar
20Fayad, JN, Semaan, MT, Meier, JC, House, JW. Hearing results using the SMart piston prosthesis. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:1122–7Google Scholar
21Galli, J, Parrilla, C, Fiorita, A, Marchese, MR, Paludetti, G. Erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser application in stapedotomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133:923–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Gerard, JM, Serry, P, Gersdorff, MC. Outcome and lack of prognostic factors in stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:290–4Google Scholar
23Harris, JP, Gong, S. Comparison of hearing results of nitinol SMART stapes piston prosthesis with conventional piston prostheses: postoperative results of nitinol stapes prosthesis. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:692–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Hazenberg, AJ, Minovi, A, Dazert, S, Hoppe, FF. Predictors of listening capabilities and patient satisfaction after stapes surgery in otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:220–6Google Scholar
25Javed, F, Leong, AC, Fairley, JW. Superficial temporal vein graft in stapedotomy: a functional and aesthetic alternative. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:120–3.Google Scholar
26Kisilevsky, VE, Bailie, NA, Dutt, SN, Halik, JJ. Functional results of 394 bilateral stapedotomies evaluated with the Glasgow Benefit Plot. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:1027–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Kojima, H, Komori, M, Chikazawa, S, Yaguchi, Y, Yamamoto, K, Chujo, K et al. Comparison between endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery. Laryngoscope 2014;124:266–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Lippy, WH, Burkey, JM, Schuring, AG, Berenholz, LP. Comparison of titanium and Robinson stainless steel stapes piston prostheses. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:874–7Google Scholar
29Mangham, CA Jr. Nitinol-teflon stapes prosthesis improves low-frequency hearing results after stapedotomy. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1022–6Google Scholar
30Marchese, MR, Cianfrone, F, Passali, GC, Paludetti, G. Hearing results after stapedotomy: role of the prosthesis diameter. Audiol Neurootol 2007;12:221–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Marchese, MR, Scorpecci, A, Cianfrone, F, Paludetti, G. “One-shot” CO2 versus Er:YAG laser stapedotomy: is the outcome the same? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:351–6Google Scholar
32Massey, BL, Kennedy, RJ, Shelton, C. Stapedectomy outcomes: titanium versus teflon wire prosthesis. Laryngoscope 2005;115:249–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Parrilla, C, Galli, J, Fetoni, AR, Rigante, M, Paludetti, G. Erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser stapedotomy--a safe technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138:507–12Google Scholar
34Quaranta, N, Besozzi, G, Fallacara, RA, Quaranta, A. Air and bone conduction change after stapedotomy and partial stapedectomy for otosclerosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133:116–20Google Scholar
35Rajan, GP, Atlas, MD, Subramaniam, K, Eikelboom, RH. Eliminating the limitations of manual crimping in stapes surgery? A preliminary trial with the shape memory Nitinol stapes piston. Laryngoscope 2005;115:366–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Rajan, GP, Diaz, J, Blackham, R, Eikelboom, RH, Atlas, MD, Shelton, C et al. Eliminating the limitations of manual crimping in stapes surgery: mid-term results of 90 patients in the Nitinol stapes piston multicenter trial. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1236–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Redfors, YD, Moller, C. Otosclerosis: thirty-year follow-up after surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2011;120:608–14Google Scholar
38Roosli, C, Huber, AM. Mid-term results after a newly designed nitinol stapes prosthesis use in 46 patients. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:e61–4Google Scholar
39Sarac, S, McKenna, MJ, Mikulec, AA, Rauch, SD, Nadol, JB Jr, Merchant, SN. Results after revision stapedectomy with malleus grip prosthesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;115:317–22Google Scholar
40Satar, B, Sen, D, Karahatay, S, Birkent, H, Yetiser, S. Effect of cochlear reserve on postoperative outcome in otosclerosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007;264:489–93Google Scholar
41Schmid, P, Hausler, R. Revision stapedectomy: an analysis of 201 operations. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:1092–100Google Scholar
42Sorom, AJ, Driscoll, CL, Beatty, CW, Lundy, L. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after stapedotomy with implantation of a self-crimping Nitinol stapes prosthesis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:65–9Google Scholar
43Stucken, EZ, Brown, KD, Selesnick, SH. The use of KTP laser in revision stapedectomy. Otol Neurotol 2011;33:1297–9Google Scholar
44Szyfter, W, Mielcarek-Kuchta, D, Mietkiewska-Leszniewska, D, Mlodkowska, A, Laczkowska-Przybylska, J. Comparison between 2 laser systems, Er-Yag and CO2, in stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:29–35Google Scholar
45Tenney, J, Arriaga, MA, Chen, DA, Arriaga, R. Enhanced hearing in heat-activated-crimping prosthesis stapedectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138:513–17Google Scholar
46Ueda, H, Kishimoto, M, Uchida, Y, Sone, M. Factors affecting fenestration of the footplate in stapes surgery: effectiveness of Fisch's reversal steps stapedotomy. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:1576–80Google Scholar
47Van Rompaey, V, Claes, G, Somers, T, Offeciers, E. Erosion of the long process of the incus in revision stapes surgery: malleovestibular prosthesis or incus reconstruction with hydroxyapatite bone cement? Otol Neurotol 2011;32:914–18Google Scholar
48Vincent, R, Bittermann, AJ, 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 2013;33:928–33Google Scholar
49Vincent, 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;120:570–5Google Scholar
50Vincent, R, Rovers, M, Zingade, N, Oates, J, Sperling, N, Deveze, A et al. Revision stapedotomy: operative findings and hearing results. A prospective study of 652 cases from the Otology-Neurotology Database. Otol Neurotol 2010;3:875–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Wiet, RJ, Battista, RA, Wiet, RM, Sabin, AT. Hearing outcomes in stapes surgery: a comparison of fat, fascia, and vein tissue seals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;148:115–20Google Scholar
52Cuda, D, Murri, A, Mochi, P, Solenghi, T, Tinelli, N. Microdrill, CO2-laser, and piezoelectric stapedotomy: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:1111–15Google Scholar
53Pudel, EI, Briggs, RJ. Laser-assisted stapedotomy with a Nitinol heat-crimping prosthesis: outcomes compared with a platinum fluoroplastic prosthesis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:51–4Google Scholar
54Shine, NP, Rodrigues, S, Miller, S, Packer, P. Bilateral stapedectomy: association between first- and second-ear surgical findings and their effects on the second-ear outcome. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117:207–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55Albers, AE, Schonfeld, U, Kandilakis, K, Jovanovic, S. CO(2) laser revision stapedotomy. Laryngoscope 2013;123:1519–26Google Scholar
56Felix-Trujillo, MM, Valdez-Martinez, E, Ramirez, JE, Lozano-Morales, R. Surgical and medical treatment of hearing loss in mixed otosclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118:859–65Google Scholar
57Gouveris, H, Toth, M, Koutsimpelas, D, Schmidtmann, I, Mann, WJ. Short-term hearing results after primary stapedotomy with nitinol and teflon-platinum prostheses for otosclerosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2201–5Google Scholar
58Grolman, W, Tange, RA. First experience with a new stapes clip piston in stapedotomy. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:595–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Lavy, J, Khalil, S. Five-year hearing results with the shape memory nitinol stapes prosthesis. Laryngoscope 2014;124:2591–3Google Scholar
60Salami, A, Mora, R, Mora, F, Guastini, L, Salzano, FA, Dellepiane, M. Learning curve for Piezosurgery in well-trained otological surgeons. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;142:120–5Google Scholar
61Yavuz, H, Caylakli, F, Ozer, F, Ozluoglu, LN. Reliability of microdrill stapedotomy: comparison with pick stapedotomy. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:998–1001Google Scholar
62Vincent, R, Gratacap, B, Oates, J, Sperling, NM. Stapedotomy in osteogenesis imperfecta: a prospective study of 23 consecutive cases. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:859–65Google Scholar
63Gurgel, RK, Jackler, RK, Dobie, RA, Popelka, GR. A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:803–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed