Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:59:40.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Realities in ossiculoplasty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

J. G. Toner ,
G. D. L. Smyth  and
A. G. Kerr
J. G. Toner*
Affiliation:
Belfast
G. D. L. Smyth
Affiliation:
Belfast
A. G. Kerr
Affiliation:
Belfast
*
Mr J. G. Toner, F.R.C.S., Senior Registrar, Eye and Ear Clinic, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, N. IrelandBT12 6BA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The results of ossiculoplasty are frequently reported in terms of closure of the air-bone gap. This parameter is a reliable indicator of the degree of technical success, and is useful in comparing different materials and types of reconstructions. However, assessment of the operated ear alone does not evaluate the effect of surgery on binaural hearing ability, leading to the situation where sub-optimal advice may be given to patients pre-operatively. This article advocates a more patient orientated method of assessing the results of ossiculoplasty. Previous studies have indicated that the operated ear must reach an air conduction level of 30 dB for the speech frequencies, or be within 15 dB of the other ear, to ensure that the patient will gain significant benefit. A graphical method for the prediction of patient benefit is presented, and compared to the rule of thumb quoted above. The implications for surgeons and patients considering ossiculoplasty are obvious.

Many statements routinely made to patients prior to surgery for conductive hearing loss are unduly optimistic and unrelated to the realities of reported results. There is a need to determine what types of such hearing losses can be helped surgically, and more importantly to what extent the patients hearing disability can be relieved.

Keywords

TympanoplastyMiddle ear surgery
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 105 , Issue 7 , July 1991 , pp. 529 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1991

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

Austin, D. F. (1989) Single-stage surgery for cholesteatoma: an actuarial analysis. American Journal of Otology, 10: 419–425.Google ScholarPubMed
Browning, G. G. (1986) Clinical Otology and Audiology. Butterworths: London, p. 181.Google Scholar
Browning, G. G., Gatehouse, S., Swan, I. R. S. (1991) A new method of reporting the benefit from middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope. In press.Google Scholar
Fikentscher, R., Rosenburg, B., Spinar, H. (1978) Howermogen nach sanierenden mitteloh operationen mit Tympanoplastik. Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, 218:Google Scholar
Ojala, K. (1979) Late results of obliteration in chronic otitis media. MD Thesis University of Oulu, Finland. Ada Universitatis Ouluensis, Ser D Media, 47: 88.Google Scholar
Reck, R., Helms, J. (1985) The bioactive glass ceramic ceravital in ear surgery. American Journal of Otology, 6: 280–283.Google Scholar
Smyth, G. D. L., Hassard, T. H., El Kordy, A. F. A. (1980) Longterm hearing performance after stapedectomy. Journal of Otology and Laryngology, 94: 1097–1105.Google Scholar
Smyth, G. D. L., Hassard, T. H. (1981) A reconsideration of the parameters for evaluating tympanic reconstruction. American Journal of Otology, 2: 365–367.Google ScholarPubMed
Smyth, G. D. L., Patterson, C. C. (1985) Results of middle ear reconstruction: Do patients and surgeons agree? American Journal of Otology, 6: 276–279.Google Scholar
Smyth, G. D. L., Gormley, P. K. (1987) Preservation of cochlear function in the surgery of cholesteatomatous labyrinthine fistula and oval window tympanosclerosis. Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 96: 111–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vlaming, M. S., Feenstra, L. (1986) Studies on the mechanics of the reconstructed human middle ear. Clinical Otolaryngology, 11: 411–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed