Literature DB >> 23503104

Bone conduction after stapes surgery: comparison of CO2 laser and manual perforation.

Christoph Brase1, Isabell Keil, Judith Schwitulla, Konstantinos Mantsopoulos, Matthias Schmid, Heinrich Iro, Joachim Hornung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare bone conduction after 2 different ways of perforating the stapes footplate during stapedotomy in patients with otosclerosis. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study.
SETTING: Tertiary reference center.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated data from 302 patients (61.2% women) who had undergone primary surgery for stapedial ankylosis between 2000 and 2010. Bone conduction thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz were determined on the first and fourth postoperative days in all patients; 280 patients were followed up after 1 month and 125 after 1 year. Audiograms were compared with preoperative bone conduction.A laser was used to open the stapes footplate in 180 patients; manual perforation was performed in 122.
RESULTS: Immediately postoperatively the bone conduction threshold was significantly worse at almost all frequencies. At lower frequencies (0.5 and 1 kHz), it improved to baseline within the first 4 days. At 2 kHz, the threshold on Day 4 remained significantly worse than baseline and improved only after 1 month, then exceeding the preoperative value. Bone conduction at 4 kHz still tended to be worse than baseline 1 month after surgery, but the difference was no longer statistically significant 1 year later. A direct comparison with classic stapedotomy showed a trend in favor of the laser technique, but the difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Both laser and classic techniques can be used successfully in stapes surgery without causing long-term damage to the inner ear. Direct comparison shows a trend in favor of laser stapedotomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23503104     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318280dc78

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  7 in total

1.  Is one of these two techniques: CO2 laser versus microdrill assisted stapedotomy results in better post-operative hearing outcome?

Authors:  Nasser M Altamami; Gunther Huyghues des Etages; Maxime Fieux; Aurélie Coudert; Ruben Hermann; Sandra Zaouche; Eric Truy; Stéphane Tringali
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  A comparison of hearing results following stapedotomy under local versus general anesthesia.

Authors:  Maureen Loewenthal; Nathan Jowett; Chia-Jung Busch; Rainald Knecht; Carsten V Dalchow
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-04-12       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Long-term follow-up after "one-shot" CO2 laser stapedotomy: is the functional outcome stable during the years?

Authors:  Bruno Sergi; Daniela Lucidi; Eugenio De Corso; Gaetano Paludetti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  CO2 laser stapedotomy safety: influence of laser energy and time on bone-conduction hearing levels.

Authors:  Uwe Schönfeld; Hu Weiming; Veit M Hofmann; Sergije Jovanovic; Andreas E Albers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Mid-term evaluation of perioperative i.v. corticosteroid treatment efficacy on overall and audiological outcome following CO2 laser stapedotomy: a retrospective study of 84 cases.

Authors:  L Székely; A Gáborján; K Dános; T Szalóki; Z Fent; L Tamás; G Polony
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Hearing Results in 151 Primary Stapedotomies for Otosclerosis: The Effects of Using Different Audiologic Parameters and Criteria on Success Rates.

Authors:  Morgane Saerens; Jean-Philippe Van Damme; Benoit Bihin; Pierre Garin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.619

7.  Impact of surgeons' experience and the single-shot perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis on outcome in stapedotomy.

Authors:  Faris F Brkic; Boban M Erovic; Arina Onoprienko; Stefan Janik; Dominik Riss; Claudia Lill; Stefan Grasl; Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi; Erich Vyskocil
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.