4.2 Article

Endoscopic Stapes Surgery: A Comparison With Microscopic Surgery

期刊

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 662-666

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001371

关键词

Audiometry; Endoscopes; Operative; Otosclerosis; Procedures; Pure-tone; Stapes surgery; Surgical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate postoperative audiological outcomes and complication rates for fully endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery carried out by a single surgeon in one center. Patients: All patients having undergone endoscopic and non-endoscopic stapes surgery for otosclerosis from September 2009 to August 2016 under a single surgeon. Intervention(s): Stapedotomy using either an operating microscope or endoscope for visualization. Stapedotomy was carried out using a standard approach. Main Outcome Measure(s): Pre- and postoperative audiometry and complications. Results: Thirty-four patients who underwent endoscopic stapes surgery and 47 patients who underwent non-endoscopic stapes surgery were included in this study. Seventy-nine percent of both endoscopic and non-endoscopic groups had the average air-bone gap closed to less than 10 dBHL, respectively; the difference was not significant (p = 0.940, chi(2) test). No patients with sensorineural hearing loss, vertigo, or facial nerve paresis were reported. Two of 34 patients (6%) of the endoscopic group had the chorda tympani cut intraoperatively for access compared with 11 of 47 patients (23%) of the non-endoscopic group. Sixteen of 47 patients (34%) required an endaural incision for access in the non-endoscopic group; no endaural incisions were made in the endoscopic group. Conclusion: Air-bone gap closure and patient complications did not vary significantly between endoscopic and non-endoscopic groups in this study of 34 endoscopic procedures. There is a requirement for further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods to fully gauge the safety and effectiveness of this technique.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据