DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20203196

Comparative study showing relevance of prosthesis diameter and hearing outcome in stapes surgery

Udayanila Thangavel, Harish Narasing Katakdhond, Deepak Dalmia, Narsinha Davange, Parth Patni, Rizul Goyal

Abstract


Background: Otosclerosis presents as conductive hearing loss, stapedotomy is the treatment for otosclerosis, and different sizes of piston diameter are available for the procedure. Aims and objectives were to study and compare hearing improvement between the 0.4 and 0.6 mm sizes of teflon piston in stapedotomy.

Methods: It was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were subjected for small fenestra stapedotomy. Patients were divided into two groups after randomization into group A (with 0.4 mm piston diameter) and group B (with 0.6 mm piston diameter). The hearing outcome with standard audiological assessment was performed at one month and six months postoperatively.  

Results: Comparison of 1 month AB gap among the patients with 0.4 mm piston and 0.6 mm piston showed that there was no statistically significant difference among both the groups of patients (independent t test p value=0.699). Comparison of 6 month AB gap among the patients with 0.4 mm piston and 0.6 mm piston showed that there was no statistically significant difference among both the groups of patients (independent t test p value=0.54).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in hearing improvement among the individual methods (piston size 0.4 and 0.6) with each other both in 1 month post-operative and 6 month post-operative follow up. Hence, we conclude that there is no relevance of different diameter of teflon piston prosthesis (0.4 mm versus 0.6 mm) as far as hearing outcome is concerned.


Keywords


Otosclerosis, Piston diameter, Size of piston, Stapedotomy, Teflon piston

Full Text:

PDF

References


Gleeson MJ, Clarke R. Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery. 7th Edition. CRC Press; 2008.

House HP, Hansen MR, Dakhail AA, House JW. Stapedectomy versus stapedotomy: comparison of results with long‐term follow‐up. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(11):2046-50.

De NK, Alam N. Small fenestra Stapedectomy (SFS) or Stapedotomy- A. review. Indian J Otolaryngol. 1986;38:138-40.

Shea JJ. A personal history of stapedectomy. Am J Otol. 1998;19(5 Suppl):S2-S12.

Bernardeschi D, Seta D, Canu G, Russo F, Ferrary E, Lahlou G, et al. Does the diameter of the stapes prosthesis really matter? A prospective clinical study. Laryngoscope. 2017;128(8):1922-6.

Wegner I, Verhagen J, Stegeman I, Vincent R, Grolman W. A systematic review of the effect of piston diameter in stapes surgery for otosclerosis on hearing results. Laryngoscope. 2015;126(1):182-90.

Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;113(3):186-7.

Panda N, Bakshi J, Verma R, Kaushal D, Gupta N. Piston diameter in stapes surgery. Does it have a bearing?. Indian J Otol. 2014;20(1):33.

Cawthorne T. Otosclerosis. J Laryngol Otol. 1955;69(7):437-56.

Vartiainen E, Virtaniemi J, Kemppainen M, Karjalainen S. Hearing levels of patients with otosclerosis 10 years after stapedectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993;108(3):251-5.

Sedwick J, Louden C, Shelton C. Stapedectomy vs Stapedotomy: Do You Really Need a Laser? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123(2):177-80.

Gristwood R, Venables W. Effects of fenestra size and piston diameter on the outcome of stapes surgery for clinical otosclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120(6):363-71.

Cavaliere M, Ricciardiello F, Mesolella M, Iengo M. Stapedotomy: Functional results with different diameter prostheses. ORL. 2012;74(2):93-6.

Faranesh N, Magamseh E, Zaaroura S, Zeidan R, Shupak A. Hearing and otoacoustic emissions outcome of stapedotomy: does the prosthesis diameter matter? J Int Adv Otol. 2017;13(2):162-70

Laske RD, Röösli C, Chatzimichalis MV, Sim JH, Huber AM. The influence of prosthesis diameter in stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol 2011;32(4):520-8.

Conrad G. ‘Collective Stapedectomy’ (An approach to the numbers problem). J Laryngol Otol. 1990;104(5):390-93.

Shea J. The Teflon piston operation for otosclerosis. Laryngoscope. 1963;73(5):508-9.

Sennaroglu L, Ünal Ö, Sennaroglu G, Gürsel B, Belgin E. Effect of Teflon piston diameter on hearing result after stapedotomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;124(3):279-81.

Grolman W, Tange RA, de Bruijn AJ, Hart AA, Schouwenburg PF. A retrospective study of the hearing results obtained after stapedotomy by the implantation of two Teflon pistons with a different diameter. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;254(9-10):422-4.

Marchese MR, Cianfrone F, Passali GC, Paludetti G. Hearing Results after Stapedotomy: Role of the Prosthesis Diameter. Audiol Neurotol. 2007;12(4):221-5.

Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN. Mechanical and acoustic analysis of middle ear reconstruction. Am J Otol. 1995;16(4):486-97.

Hüttenbrink K. Biomechanics of Stapesplasty: A Review. Otol Neurotol. 2003;24(4):548-59.

Sim J, Chatzimichalis M, Röösli C, Laske R, Huber A. Objective assessment of stapedotomy surgery from round window motion measurement. Ear Hear. 2012;33(5):e24-31.

Fisch U. Stapedotomy versus Stapedectomy. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30(8):1160-5.