4.0 Article

Revision Stapes Surgery in a Tertiary Referral Center: Surgical and Audiometric Outcomes

Journal

ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 128, Issue 11, Pages 997-1005

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0003489419853304

Keywords

otology; otosclerosis; hearing loss; revision stapes surgery; audiometry; air-bone gap

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate pure-tone audiometric results in otosclerosis patients undergoing revision stapes surgery following previous middle ear interventions. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center. Consecutive otosclerosis patients who underwent revision stapes surgeries, following previous middle ear interventions, for persistent conductive hearing loss, recurrent conductive hearing loss, or vertigo and had available postoperative pure-tone audiometry were included. Mean pre- and postoperative air conduction, bone conduction, and air-bone gap averaged over 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz were obtained. Audiometric outcomes were obtained at 7 weeks postoperatively. Results: In total, 63 consecutive otosclerosis patients who underwent 66 revision stapes surgeries were included. Air-bone gap improved significantly with a mean gain of 19 dB (95% CI, 15-22). Air conduction improved significantly with a mean gain of 18 dB (95% CI, 14-23). Bone conduction did not change significantly, with a mean deterioration of 0 dB (95% CI, -2 to 1). Air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less was achieved in 38% of cases and to 20 dB or less in 80% of cases. Indication for surgery, previous type of procedure, primary cause of failure, and current surgical technique were not significantly associated with air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less. Indication for surgery and primary cause of failure were associated with one another. Conclusions: Compared to the available literature, a slightly larger gain in air conduction and air-bone gap was achieved in our study. Air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less was achieved less often in our study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available