Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:51:05.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hearing results of 1145 stapedotomies evaluated with Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2009

V E Kisilevsky ,
S N Dutt ,
N A Bailie  and
J J Halik
V E Kisilevsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
S N Dutt
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Apollo Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
N A Bailie
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Toronto, Markham-Stouffville Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
J J Halik
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Otolaryngology, Markham-Stouffville Hospital, Markham, Ontario, Canada
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Vitaly Kisilevsky, 8 N, Room 873, Toronto General Hospital, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2C4Canada. Fax: +1 416 340 3327 E-mail: vitalykis@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims:

To evaluate the hearing results of a large series of primary stapedotomies, according to American Academy of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery guidelines and Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots.

Study design:

Retrospective chart review.

Methods:

The charts for 1369 consecutive stapedotomy cases were reviewed; 1145 cases of primary stapedotomy were included. Raw data from the audiometric database were evaluated using Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots. The effect on outcomes of using different audiological parameters was analysed.

Results:

A significant improvement was demonstrated in mean post-operative air conduction and speech reception thresholds, with no change in bone conduction. Air–bone gap closure of 10 dB or more was achieved in 82 per cent of cases. A ‘dead ear’ occurred in one patient (0.1 per cent).

Conclusion:

This study reports the largest series of primary stapedotomies evaluated with Amsterdam hearing evaluation plots. This method enables visual identification of successful and unfavourable results, providing more accurate and detailed presentation of surgical outcomes.

Keywords

Hearing LossOtosclerosisStapes Surgery
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 7 , July 2009 , pp. 730 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Shea, J, Sanabria, F, Smyth, G. Teflon piston operation for otosclerosis. Arch Otolaryngol 1962;76:516–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Shea, J. Forty years of stapes surgery. Am J Otol 1998;19:52–5Google ScholarPubMed
3 Sheehy, JL, Nelson, RA, House, HP. Stapes surgery at the Otologic Medical Group. Am J Otol 1979;1:22–6Google ScholarPubMed
4 Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:186–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Tange, RA, De Bruijn, AJG, Dreschler, WA. Gold and Teflon in the oval window. A comparison of stapes prostheses. In: Rosowski, JJ, Merchant, SN, eds. The Function and Mechanics of Normal, Diseased and Reconstructed Middle Ears. Hague: Kugler, 2000;258–9Google Scholar
6 Tange, RA, Grolman, W, Dreschler, WA. Gold and titanium in the oval window: a comparison of two metal stapes prostheses. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:102–5Google Scholar
7 De Bruijn, AJG, Tange, RA, Dreschler, WA. Efficacy of evaluation of audiometric results after stapes surgery in otosclerosis. A method for reporting results from individual cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124:84–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Browning, GG, Gatehouse, S, Swan, IRC. The Glasgow Benefit Plot: a new method for reporting benefits from middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope 1991;101:180–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Smyth, GDL. Immediate and delayed alterations in cochlear function following stapedectomy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1978;11:105–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Smyth, GDL. Practical suggestions on stapedotomy. Laryngoscope 1982;92:952–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Fish, U. Stapedotomy vs. stapedectomy. Am J Otol 1982;4:112–17Google Scholar
12 Govartes, PJ, Somers, T, Offeciers, FE. Box and whisker plots for graphic presentation of audiometric results of conductive hearing loss treatment. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:892–5Google Scholar
13 Jackler, RK. Comparability in reporting outcomes: a scientific imperative. Am J Otol 1996;17:811–12Google Scholar
14 Monsell, EM. New and revised reporting guidelines from the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:176–8Google Scholar
15 Jahnke, KP. Thoughts on the validity of the evaluation of methods in stapes surgery. In: Jahnke, KP, ed. Middle Ear Surgery: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Stuttgart: Thieme, 2000;131–32Google Scholar
16 Sakai, M. Proposal of a guideline in reporting hearing results in middle ear and mastoid surgery. Am J Otol 1994;15:291–3Google Scholar
17 Rosowski, JJ, Merchant, SN. Mechanical and acoustic analysis of middle ear reconstruction. Am J Otol 1995;16:486–97Google Scholar
18 Moscillo, L, Imperiali, M, Carra, P, Catapano, F, Motta, G. Bone conduction variation poststapedotomy. Am J Otolaryngol 2006;27:330–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Monsell, EM. Results and outcomes in ossiculoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:835–40Google Scholar
20 Carhart, R. Clinical applications of bone conduction audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 1950;51:798–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Austin, D. Acoustic mechanisms in middle ear sound transfer. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:641–54Google Scholar
22 Vartianen, E, Karjalainen, S. Bone conduction thresholds in patients with otosclerosis. Am J Otolaryngol 1992;134:234–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Blayney, AW, Williams, KR, Rice, HJ. A dynamic and harmonic damped finite element analysis model of stapedotomy. Act Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1997;117:269–73Google Scholar
24 Stenfelt, S. Middle ear ossicles motion at hearing thresholds with air conduction and bone conduction stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:2848–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Smyth, GDL, Hassard, TH. Eighteen years experience in stapedectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol (Suppl 5–6) 1978;87:3–36Google Scholar
26 De Bruijn, AJG, Tange, RA, Dreschler, WA. Efficacy of evaluation of audiometric results after stapes surgery in otosclerosis. The effects of using different audiologic parameters and criteria on success rates. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124:76–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27 Berliner, KI, Doyle, KJ, Goldenberg, RA. Reporting operative hearing results in stapes surgery: does choice of outcome measure make a difference? Am J Otol 1996;17:214–20Google Scholar
28 Perez-Lazaro, JJ, Urquiza, R, Cabrera, A, Guerrero, C, Navarro, E. Effectiveness assessment of otosclerosis surgery. Acta Oto Laryngol 2005;125:935–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29 Vincent, R, Sperling, NM, Oates, J, Jindal, M. Surgical findings and long-term hearing results in 3050 stapedotomies for primary otosclerosis: a prospective study with the otology-neurotology database. Otol Neurotol 2006;27(suppl 2):25–47Google Scholar
30 Coker, NJ, Duncan, NO, Wright, GL, Jenkins, HA, Alford, BR. Stapedectomy trends for the resident. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1988;97:109–13Google Scholar
31 Hannley, MT. Audiologic characteristics of the patient with otosclerosis. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1993;26:373–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32 Smith, JB, Sullivan, JA, McAskile, K. The fenestration operation using minimal irrigation. Laryngoscope 1957;LXVII (suppl 7):643–60Google Scholar
33 Goldenberg, RA, Berliner, KI. Reporting operative hearing results: does choice of outcome measure make a difference? Am J Otol 1995;16:128–35Google Scholar
34 Quaranta, N, Besozzi, G, Fallacara, RA, Quaranta, A. Air and bone conduction change after stapedotomy and partial stapedectomy for otosclerosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133:116–20Google Scholar
35 Banerjee, A, Hawthorne, MR, Flood, LM, Martin, FW. Audit of stapedectomy results in a district general hospital. Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:275–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Backous, DD, Coker, NJ, Jenkins, HA. Prospective study of resident-performed stapedectomy. Am J Otol 1993;14:451–4Google ScholarPubMed
37 Burns, JA, Lambert, PR. Stapedectomy in residency training. Am J Otol 1996;17:210–13Google Scholar
38 Mathews, SB, Rasgon, BM, Byl, FM. Stapes surgery in residency training program. Laryngoscope 2006;109:52–3Google Scholar
39 Hughes, GB. The learning curve in stapes surgery. Laryngoscope 1991;101:1280–4Google Scholar
40 Yung, MW, Oates, J, Vowler, SL. The learning curve in stapes surgery and its implication to training. Laryngoscope 2006;116:67–71Google Scholar
41 Conrad, GJ. “Collective stapedectomy” (an approach to the numbers problem). J Laryngol Otol 1990;104:390–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar