medigraphic.com
Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana

2012, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Otorrinolaringología 2012; 57 (2)

Estapedotomía de tipo inverso, en comparación con la técnica convencional

López SJA, González DS, Valdés OLM

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 73-77
PDF size: 245.50 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Intraoperative and late complications are directly related to the surgical technique performed in otoesclerosis surgery.
Objective: To observe if a significant difference exists in the audiologic results of stapedectomy, conventional stapedotomy and inverse stapedotomy in otosclerosis surgery.
Patients and methods: A comparative study was completed in 100 patients and 96 were included in the study. Audiologic exams were done for control three and six months after surgery. Patients were divided into three groups: Group A with 38 patients with stapedectomy; Group B with 26 patients with conventional stapedotomy and Group C with 32 patients with inverse stapedotomy.
Results: An air bone gap closure of 10 db for Group A was 78.9%, for Group B was 80.7% and for Group C 87.5%. For a closure of 20 db Group A was 84.2%, for Group B 84.6% and for Group C 90.6%. No statistical significance was found for the groups studied (p ‹ 0.05), however, the percentages were a little in favor of the inverse stapedotomy.
Conclusions: The techniques of stapedectomy, conventional stapedotomy and inverse stapedotomy result in favorable audiologic outcomes in otosclerosis surgery. No important comparative results were observed.


REFERENCES

  1. Lesinsji SG. Causes of conductive hearing loss after stapedectomy or stapedotomy: a prospective study of 279 consecutive surgical revisions. Otol Neurotol 2002;23(3):281-288.

  2. Hann WW, Incesulu A, McKenna MJ, Rauch SD, et al. Revision stapedectomy: intraoperative findings, results, and review of the literature. Laryngoscope 1997;107(9):1185-1192.

  3. Vincent R, Sperling NM, Oates J, Jindai M. Surgical findings and long-term hearing results in 3,050 stapedotomies for primary otosclerosis: a prospective study with the otology-neurotology database. Otol Neurotol 2006;27(8 Suppl 2):25-47.

  4. Persson P, Harder H, Magnuson B. Hearing results in otosclerosis surgery after partial stapedectomy, total stapedectomy and stapedotomy. Acta Otolaryngol 1997;117(1):94-99.

  5. Vasama JP, Kujala J, Hirvonen TP. Is small-fenestra stapedotomy a safer outpatient procedure than total stapedectomy? ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2006;68(2):99-102.

  6. Fisch U, Dillier N. [Technic and spate results of stapedotomy]. HNO 1987;35(6):252-254.

  7. Shea JJ. Fenestration of the oval window. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1958;67:932-951.

  8. House HP, Hansen MR, Al Dakhali AA, House JW. Stapedectomy vs stapedotomy. Comparation of results with a long term follow up. Laryngoscope 2002;112(11):2046-2050.

  9. Szymański M, Golabek W, Morshed K, Siwiec H. The influence of the sequence of surgical steps on complications rate in stapedotomy. Otol Neurotol 2007;28(2):152-156.

  10. Malafronte G, Filosa B. Fisch’s reversal steps stapedotomy: when to use it? Otol Neurotol 2009;30(8):1128-1130.

  11. Arsovic NA, Babic BB, Djukic VB, Mikic BM, et al. [Preliminary results of applying the inverse stapedotomy]. Acta Chir lugosl 2009;56(3)23-27.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com