The effect of piston diameter in primary stapes surgery on surgical success.
Hearing loss
Otology
Otosclerosis
Piston diameter
Pure-tone audiometry
Speech perception
Stapes surgery
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jan 2024
26 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
07
08
2023
accepted:
09
12
2023
medline:
26
1
2024
pubmed:
26
1
2024
entrez:
25
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate the effect of piston diameter in patients undergoing primary stapes surgery on audiometric results and postoperative complications. A retrospective single-center cohort study was performed. Adult patients who underwent primary stapes surgery between January 2013 and April 2022 and received a 0.4-mm-diameter piston or a 0.6-mm-diameter piston were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were pre- and postoperative pure-tone audiometry, pre- and postoperative speech audiometry, postoperative complications, intraoperative anatomical difficulties, and the need for revision stapes surgery. The pure-tone audiometry included air conduction, bone conduction, and air-bone gap averaged over 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kHz. In total, 280 otosclerosis patients who underwent 321 primary stapes surgeries were included. The audiometric outcomes were significantly better in the 0.6 mm group compared to the 0.4 mm group in terms of gain in air conduction (median = 24 and 20 dB, respectively), postoperative air-bone gap (median = 7.5 and 9.4 dB, respectively), gain in air-bone gap (median = 20.0 and 18.1 dB, respectively), air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less (75% and 59%, respectively) and 100% speech reception (median = 75 and 80 dB, respectively). We found no statistically significant difference in postoperative dizziness, postoperative complications and the need for revision stapes surgery between the 0.4 and 0.6 mm group. The incidence of anatomical difficulties was higher in the 0.4 mm group. The use of a 0.6-mm-diameter piston during stapes surgery seems to provide better audiometric results compared to a 0.4-mm-diameter piston, and should be the preferred piston size in otosclerosis surgery. We found no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the 0.4- and 0.6-mm-diameter piston. Based on the results, we recommend always using a 0.6-mm-diameter piston during primary stapes surgery unless anatomical difficulties do not allow it.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38273045
doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08407-w
pii: 10.1007/s00405-023-08407-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Quesnel AM, Ishai R, McKenna MJ (2018) Otosclerosis: temporal bone pathology. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2017.11.001
doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2017.11.001
pubmed: 30241764
Menger DJ, Tange RA (2003) The aetiology of otosclerosis: a review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00675.x
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00675.x
pubmed: 12680829
Wegner I, Eldaebes MMAS, Landry TG, Grolman W, Bance ML (2016) The effect of piston diameter in stapedotomy for otosclerosis: a temporal bone model. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001212
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001212
pubmed: 27642666
Kisilevsky VE, Dutt SN, Bailie NA, Halik JJ (2009) Hearing results of 1145 stapedotomies evaluated with Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots. J Laryngol Otol. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215109004745
doi: 10.1017/S0022215109004745
pubmed: 19243642
Bittermann AJN, Rovers MM, Tange RA (2011) Primary stapes surgery in patients with otosclerosis prediction of postoperative outcome. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2011.100
doi: 10.1001/archoto.2011.100
pubmed: 21768405
Vincent R, Sperling NM, Oates J, Jindal M (2006) Surgical findings and long-term hearing results in 3,050 stapedotomies for primary otosclerosis: a prospective study with the otology–neurotology database. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000235311.80066.df
doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000235311.80066.df
pubmed: 16985478
Wegner I, Verhagen JJ, Stegeman I, Vincent R, Grolman W (2016) A systematic review of the effect of piston diameter in stapes surgery for otosclerosis on hearing results. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25408
doi: 10.1002/lary.25408
pubmed: 26775200
Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN (1995) Mechanical and acoustic analysis of middle ear reconstruction. Am J Otol 16:486–497. https://doi.org/10.26574/maedica.2022.17.2.306
doi: 10.26574/maedica.2022.17.2.306
pubmed: 8588650
Kwacz M, Marek P, Borkowski P, Mrówka M (2013) A three-dimensional finite element model of round window membrane vibration before and after stapedotomy surgery. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-013-0479-y
doi: 10.1007/s10237-013-0479-y
pubmed: 23462937
pmcid: 3824605
Sim JH, Chatzimichalis M, Röösli C, Laske RD, Huber AM (2012) Objective assessment of stapedotomy surgery from round window motion measurement. Ear Hear. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0b013e318258c7a6
doi: 10.1097/aud.0b013e318258c7a6
pubmed: 22699658
Laske RD, Röösli C, Chatzimichalis MV, Sim JH, Huber AM (2011) The influence of prosthesis diameter in stapes surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e318216795b
doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e318216795b
pubmed: 21765384
Casale M, De Franco A, Salvinelli F, Piazza F, Vincenzi A, Zini C (2003) Hearing results in stapes surgery using two different prosthesis. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 124(4):255–258
pubmed: 15038569
Mangham CAJ (2008) Titanium CliP piston versus platinum-ribbon Teflon piston: piston and fenestra size affect air-bone gap. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e31815c2575
doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e31815c2575
pubmed: 18818543
Cotulbea S, Marin AH, Marin K, Ruja AS, Balica N (2009) Stapedotomy with implantation of the fisch-type 0.4 mm titanium stapes prosthesis, a good alternative in stapes surgery. Acta Fac Med Naiss 26:11–15
Hornung JA, Brase C, Zenk J, Iro H (2011) Results obtained with a new superelastic nitinol stapes prosthesis in stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e3182355886
doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e3182355886
pubmed: 21997589
Gupta N, Panda NK, Bakshi J, Verma RK (2014) Piston diameter in stapes surgery. Does it have a bearing? Indian J Otol. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-7749.129813
doi: 10.4103/0971-7749.129813
Van Rompaey V, Van de Heyning P, Yung M (2012) Response to “The influence of prosthesis diameter in stapes surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature.” Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e318216795b
doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e318216795b
pubmed: 22193615
Bernardeschi D, De Seta D, Canu G, Russo FY, Ferrary E, Lahlou G et al (2018) Does the diameter of the stapes prosthesis really matter? A prospective clinical study. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27021
doi: 10.1002/lary.27021
pubmed: 29729031
Shah V, Ganapathy H (2018) Factors affecting the outcome of stapes surgery. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-017-1134-1
doi: 10.1007/s12070-017-1134-1
pubmed: 31750159
pmcid: 6848634
Salvador P, Costa R, Silva F, Fonseca R (2021) Primary stapedotomy: influence of prosthesis diameter on hearing outcome. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otoeng.2020.06.004
doi: 10.1016/j.otoeng.2020.06.004
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0194-5998(95)70103-6
doi: 10.1016/s0194-5998(95)70103-6
Gurgel RK, Jackler RK, Dobie RA, Popelka GR (2012) A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812458401
doi: 10.1177/0194599812458401
pubmed: 22931898
De Bruijn AJG, Tange RA, Dreschler WA (2001) Efficacy of evaluation of audiometric results after stapes surgery in otosclerosis. II. A method for reporting results from individual cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2001.111600
doi: 10.1067/mhn.2001.111600
pubmed: 11228459
Faranesh N, Magamseh E, Zaaroura S, Zeidan R, Shupak A (2017) Hearing and otoacoustic emissions outcome of stapedotomy: does the prosthesis diameter matter? J Int Adv. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2017.3378
doi: 10.5152/iao.2017.3378
Forton GEJ, Wuyts FL, Delsupehe KG, Verfaillie J, Loncke R (2009) CO
doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e3181a52ab4
pubmed: 19415033
Mangham CAJ (1993) Reducing footplate complications in small fenestra microdrill stapedotomy. Am J Otol. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e3181a52ab4
doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e3181a52ab4
pubmed: 8503482
Fisch U (2009) Stapedotomy versus stapedectomy. Otol Neurotol. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e3181c17941
doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e3181c17941
pubmed: 19957391
Blijleven EE, Thomeer HGXM, Stokroos R, Wegner I (2019) Protocol for a validation study of the translated stapesplasty outcome test 25 for measurement of disease-specific quality of life in Dutch patients with otosclerosis. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030219
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030219
pubmed: 31826888
pmcid: 6924746