Suphi BULĞURCU, İlker Burak ARSLAN, Ömer UĞUR, İbrahim ÇUKUROVA

Comparison of two different methods of prosthesis placement in otosclerosis

Objective: Objective: Choice and positioning of the prosthesis is a fundamental element in successful operations for otosclerosis. The present study compares two different techniques for placing a prosthesis when undertaking surgery for otosclerosis. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of records from 50 cases of individuals (33 women, 17 men) undergoing stapedotomy between the years 2009 and 2016. Two alternative procedures were used: in the “reverse” technique, placement of the prosthesis preceded stapes removal; in the “conventional” technique, placement of the prosthesis followed stapes removal. These groups were labelled groups 1 and 2, respectively. There were 25 cases in each. The two groups were compared for hearing outcome and incidence of complications. Results: An air-bone gap below 20 dB was obtained in 80% of cases following the reverse technique, and 76% of cases after conventional surgery. The difference between the two techniques lacked statistical significance (p>0.05). A single case in group 1 required a revision procedure since the prosthesis was taken out 4 months post-surgery. In group 2, a single case sustained injury to the chorda tympani. Vertigo symptoms occurred in 7 individuals in group 1, and 8 in group 2. Conclusion: There is no significant difference between treatments in terms of improved auditory function or fewer complications. The authors suggest clinicians’ experience is the key factor in deciding which technique to favour.

PDF

___

1.House HP. The evolution of otosclerosis surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1993;26:323-33.

2. Sedwick JD, Louden CL, Shelton C. Stapedectomy vs stapedotomy. Do you really need a laser? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;123:177-80.

3.Gristwood RE, Venables WN. Analysis of long-term hearinggains after stapes surgery with piston reconstruction for otosclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122:500-10.

4.Szymanski M, Golabek W, Morsh ed K, Siwiec H. The influence of the sequence of surgical steps on complications rate in stapedotomy. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:152-6.

5. Fisch U. Stapedotomy and stapedectomy in tympanoplasty, mastoidectomy and stapes surgery, 2nd edn. Thieme, Stuttgart, New York,2008; pp 222–38.

6.Adedeji TO, Indorewala S , Indorewala A, Nemade G. Stapedotomy and its effect on hearing–our experience with 54 cases. African health sciences. 2016; 16:276-81.

7. Akdağ M, Kertmen M, Demir HH, Günyel E. Otosklerozu Olan 42 Olguluk Stapedotomi Seri Analizi. Düzce Tıp Dergisi 2013;15:19-21.

8. Husban HA. Outcome of management of otosclerosis by stapedotomu compared to stapedectomy in a jordanian population.Oman Med J. 2013;28:36-8.

9.Mahafza T, Al-Layla A, Tawalbeh M, Abu-Yagoub Y, Atwan Sulaiman A. Surgical Treatment of Otosclerosis: Eight years’ Experience at the Jordan University Hospital. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 25:233-8.

10. Hancı D, Sözen T, Kayahan B, Saraç S, Sennaroğlu L. Stapes Surgery Outcomes: The Practice of 35 Years. Turk Arch Otolaryngol 2014; 52: 115-20.

11. Freni F, Mannella VK, Cammaroto G, Azielli C, Cappuccio C, Galletti F. Classic and reversal steps stapedotomy performed with CO2 laser: a comparative analysis.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:981-6.

12. Gołabek W, Szymanski M, Siwiec H, Kłos A Complications of three methods of stapedectomy. Otolaryngol Pol 2001; 55: 593-7