Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate results of revision stapedectomy with and without use of the laser and determine factors predictive of hearing outcome.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review of 356 revision stapedectomy operations performed at the House Ear Clinic, a tertiary neurotologic private practice, between 1983 and 1995.

RESULTS: A postoperative gap of <10 dB was obtained in 60% of cases. Results were similar with and without the use of a laser. Sensorineural hearing loss of >10 dB occurred in 7.7%, with 3 (1.4%) ears with profound hearing loss. A poorer outcome was related to incus necrosis, multiple revisions, and indications for surgery other than conductive hearing loss.

CONCLUSION: Revision stapedectomy can provide good gap closure in 60% of cases, with small risk of sensorineural hearing loss.

SIGNIFICANCE: Although not as satisfactory as primary stapedectomy, revision stapedectomy can be offered to patients with reasonable expectations for good gap closure.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Sheehy

Nelson

House

. Revision stapedectomy: a review of 258 cases. Laryngoscope 1981; 91: 43–51.

2. Crabtree

Britton

Powers

. An evaluation of revision stapes surgery. Laryngoscope 1990; 90: 224.

3. Derlacki

. Revision stapes surgery: problems with some solutions. Laryngoscope 1985; 95: 1047–53.

4. Glasscock

Mckennan

Levine

. Revision stapedectomy surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987; 96: 141–8.

5. Krieger

Lippy

Schuring

Revision stapedectomy for incus erosion: long-term hearing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 119: 370–3.

6. Silverstein

Bendet

Rosenberg

Revision stapes surgery with and without laser: a comparison. Laryngoscope 1994; 104: 1431–8.

7. Lesinski

Stein

. Stapedectomy revision with the CO₂ laser. Laryngoscope 1989;99 (Suppl 46):13–19.

8. Vincent

Gratacap

Causse

Argon laser and Gherini-Causse Endo-Otoprobe in otologic surgery. Ear Nose Throat 1996; 75: 770, 773–8, 780.

9. Shea

Jr . Forty years of stapes surgery. Am J Otol 1998; 19: 52–5.

10.

10. Belluci

. Trends and profiles in stapes surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1979; 88: 708–13.

11.

11. Han

Inceslu

Mckenna

Revision stapedectomy: intraoperative findings, results and review of literature. Laryngoscope 1997; 107: 1185–92.

12.

12. Hammerschlag

Fishman

Scheer

. A review of 308 cases of revision stapedectomy. Laryngoscope 1998; 108: 1794–800.

13.

13. Glasscock

Storper

Haynes

Twenty-five years of experiences with stapedectomy. Laryngoscope 1995; 105: 899–904.

14.

14. Feldman

Schuknecht

. Experience with revision stapedectomy procedures. Laryngoscope 1970; 80: 1281–91.

15.

15. Magliulo

Cristofari

Terranova

. Functional hearing results in revision stapes surgery. Am J Otol 1997; 18: 408–12.

16.

16. Grunwald

Lomas

Muller

Postoperative results in revision stapes surgery. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 1998; 77: 67–9.

17.

17. Haberkamp

Harvey

Khafagy

. Revision stapedectomy with and without the CO₂ laser: an analysis of results. Am J Otol 1996; 17: 225–9.

18.

18. Wiet

Kubek

Lemberg

A meta-analysis review of revision stapes surgery with argon laser: effectiveness and safety. Am J Otol 1997; 18: 166–71.

19.

19. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. “Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss.” Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 113: 186–7.

20.

20. Berliner

Doyle

Goldenberg

. Reporting operative hearing results in stapes surgery: does choice of outcome measure make a difference? Am J Otol 1996;17: 521–8.