4.5 Review

Gusher in stapes surgery: a systematic review

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 276, Issue 9, Pages 2363-2376

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-019-05538-x

Keywords

Gusher; Perilymphatic leak; Stapes surgery; Stapes fixation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim of this study is to perform a systematic literature review on the occurrence of gusher during stapes surgery, to understand its surgical management and outcomes. Methods The PRISMA standard was applied to identify English, Italian or French-language studies, related to stapes surgery and mentioning gusher or perilymphatic leak. Full-texts lacking information on the management of gusher and/or the post-operative hearing outcome were excluded. Results Twenty-four articles were eventually included. Seventy-six patients were involved in the qualitative synthesis. The management of gusher mostly consisted in covering the oval window and/or filling the tympanic cavity, with absorbable and autologous graft materials. Packing of the external auditory canal was reported in 51 patients (67%). Gusher was related to complete/profound loss of hearing in 25% of the cases and to a worsening of hearing function in 31% of patients. In 19% of patients an improvement in hearing tests was reported; in 28% the hearing function was unchanged. Post-operative vestibular symptoms were reported in 7 patients, and were mainly mild and transient. The absence of vestibular symptoms was underlined in 9 cases, while in 79% of the patients the authors did not provide information. Conclusion The unexpected occurrence of gusher during stapes surgery represents a relevant issue for the otologic surgeon. Its management most commonly consists in plugging the oval window and the tympanic cavity. In most of the cases, a stapes prosthesis could be positioned. The results on hearing and vestibular functions are widely variable.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available