Abstract
Objective
This study is to compare the hearing outcomes and complications of stapes surgery and cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis (FAO).
Data sources
A comprehensive electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library was conducted in June 2021 for articles in the literature till this year.
Study selection
Studies are published in English language, conducted on human subjects, concerned with comparison of CI and stapes surgery in the management of FAO, not Laboratory study and not Opinion study. The current review followed the guidelines of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement 2009 (PRISMA).
Data extraction
Twenty-six studies were included with 334 patients in CI group and 241 patients in stapes surgery group. Comparison between both groups was done in terms of postoperative complications, audiological outcomes, rete of revision surgery and patients’ satisfaction rate.
Results
Postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in CI (13.6%) than stapes surgery (18.6%). CI had a significantly lower rate of revision surgery (8.1%) than stapes surgery (16.4%). CI had a better mean for pure tone average (29.1 dB) than stapedectomy (52.3 dB) while stapes surgery had a higher mean for recognition of monosyllables and disyllables than CI. CI had significantly higher satisfaction rate than stapes surgery.
Conclusion
Both Stapes surgery and CI are reliable treatment options for FAO with close success rates. Statistics of CI are greater than stapes surgery and CI has a consistent improvement in audiometric outcomes in comparison to stapes surgery.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Otosclerosis is a disorder of the labyrinthine capsule, formed of bone resorption then reparative deposition of new, immature sclerotic bone [1]. Otosclerotic foci may extend deeper into the labyrinth, resulting in retrofenestral otosclerosis and severe mixed hearing loss which is known as far-advanced otosclerosis (FAO) [2]. FAO was first defined by House in 1961 as air conduction (AC) threshold by 85 dB in otosclerosis patients. There is no universally accepted definition for advanced otosclerosis. Calmels et al. defined FAO audiologically as decrease dissyllabic words less than 30% of the speech discrimination (SD) score at 70 dB [3]. There are no standard guidelines for management of FAO. The intervention options include stapes surgery and hearing aid, or cochlear implantation (CI) [2, 4]. Each has its advantages, disadvantages, results and complications [5]. So, the objective of our study is to compare the hearing outcomes and complications of stapes surgery and cochlear implantation in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis.
Patients and methods
Literature search
A comprehensive electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library was conducted in June 2021 for articles in the literature till this year. Only English studies concerning stapes surgery or cochlear implantation in FAO were included using a combination of the following key words: far-advanced otosclerosis, stapedectomy, stapes surgery, stapedotomy, cochlear implantation, cochlear implant. Article selection and screening proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria Fig. 1. Cited references in the screened articles were also assessed for relevance to maximize sensitivity. 312 articles were yielded, from which 51 articles met our criteria. After duplicates removal, 35 articles were screened in title/abstract screening, while 30 articles were screened in full text screening for inclusion. Finally, 26 articles were included. Detailed characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1.
Quality assessment
The quality of relevant studies was assessed using NIH quality assessment tool for observational cohort studies. (“Study Quality Assessment Tools | National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI),” 2019) Regarding cohort studies, each study was given a score out of 14 based on answering each question (Yes = 1, No = 0, NA = 0). A score of 10–14 indicated a good quality article, 5–9 for fair, and 1–4 for poor quality article. Regarding case series studies, total evaluation score was 9, a score from 7 to 9 indicated good quality article, whereas score from 4 to 6 for fair, and 1–3 for poor quality article. Regarding quality assessment, from 26 studies, 18 were evaluated with good quality, 7 were fair, and 1 was poor.
Statistical analysis
We made pairwise meta-analysis of our outcomes using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (CMA version 3.9). Odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) was also be calculated for categorical data. While dichotomous variables with one group were assessed by event rate and its corresponding 95% CI. A fixed-effects model was used when there was no heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed with Q statistics and I2-test considering it significant with I2 value > 50% or P-value < 0.10.
Results
Postoperative complications
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had significant lower rate of any postoperative complications in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 13.6%, 95% CI (9.7–18.6%), P-value < 0.001]. While any postoperative complications rate of stapedectomy was [Event rate = 21.5, 95% CI (12.7–34%), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 2).
Difficult access to area of cochleostomy
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had significant low rate of difficult access to area of cochleostomy in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 24.9%, 95% CI (13.4–41.4%), P-value = 0.004] (Fig. 3).
Difficult insertion of electrode bundle
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had significant low rate of difficult insertion of electrode bundle in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 14.8%, 95% CI (10.2–21%), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 4).
Dysgeusia
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had significant lower rate of dysgeusia in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 1.4%, 95% CI (0.1–18.7%), P-value = 0.003]. While dysgeusia rate of stapedectomy was [Event rate = 3.6%, 95% CI (0.5–21.4%), P-value = 0.001] (Fig. 5).
Tinnitus
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had lower rate of tinnitus in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 32.7%, 95% CI (17.1–53.4%), P-value = 0.099]. While tinnitus rate of stapedectomy was [Event rate = 52.5%, 95% CI (13.3–88.8%), P-value = 0.001] (Fig. 6).
Vertigo
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that stapedectomy had significant lower rate of vertigo in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 8.8%, 95% CI (3.5–20.3%), P-value < 0.001]. While vertigo rate of CI was [Event rate = 12.8%, 95% CI (2.3–47.8%), P-value = 0.040] (Fig. 7).
Facial electrical stimulation
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had a significant low rate of facial electrical stimulation in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 12.4%, 95% CI (8.4–18%), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 8).
Postoperative hearing loss
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had significant lower rate of hearing loss after surgery in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 16.4%, 95% CI (4.9–42.9%), P-value = 0.017]. While hearing loss rate after surgery of stapedectomy was [Event rate = 21.2%, 95% CI (11.1–36.7%), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 9).
Revision surgery
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had a significant lower rate of revision surgery rate in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 8.1%, 95% CI (4.3–14.9%), P-value < 0.001]. While revision surgery rate of stapedectomy was [Event rate = 16.4%, 95% CI (7.9–31%), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 10).
Recognition of monosyllables
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that stapedectomy had a higher significant mean for recognition of monosyllables in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Mean = 34%, 95% CI (16.4–51.6%), P-value < 0.001]. While mean recognition of monosyllables of CI was [Mean = 28.1%, 95% CI (5.1–61.3%), P-value = 0.097] (Fig. 11).
Recognition of disyllables
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that stapedectomy had a higher significant mean for recognition of disyllables in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Mean = 56.6%, 95% CI (45.2–68%), P-value < 0.001]. While mean recognition of disyllables of CI was [Mean = 55.2%, 95% CI (21.4–89%), P-value = 0.001] (Fig. 12).
Recognition of phrases
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had a high significant mean for recognition of phrases in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Mean = 65.7%, 95% CI (49.1–82.4%), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 13).
Postoperative pure tone average
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had a better mean for pure tone average in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Mean = 29.1 dB CI (29.1–32.5), P-value = 0.096]. While mean pure tone average of stapedectomy was [Mean = 52.3 dB CI (39.9–64.8), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 14).
Speech reception threshold
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that stapedectomy had a higher significant mean for speech reception threshold in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Mean = 62.6 dB, CI (33.6–91.5%), P-value < 0.001]. While mean speech reception threshold of CI was [Mean = 43.7 dB, CI (30.5–56.9%), P-value < 0.001] (Fig. 15).
Satisfaction rate
Meta-analyses of relevant studies showed that CI was significantly higher satisfaction rate than stapedectomy in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis [Event rate = 86.3%, 95% CI (55.6–96.9%), P-value = 0.026]. While satisfaction rate of stapedectomy was [Event rate = 69.5%, 95% CI (55.2–80.8%), P-value = 0.009] (Fig. 16).
Discussion
The management of FAO has evolved over the past 20 years with the availability of CI beside stapes surgery. Each procedure has its advantages and disadvantages. Many factors may affect the choice of the management plan like the contralateral ear hearing level, duration of hearing loss, economic issues, complication rates, patient preference [16, 27]. So, this study is primarily concerned with the comparison of CI and stapes surgery in patients with FAO through metanalysis of relevant studies.
Twenty-six studies were included in the metanalysis. Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in CI (13.6%) than stapes surgery (18.6%) in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis. Dysgeusia was lower in CI (1.4%) than stapes surgery (3.6%). Tinnitus was lower in CI (32.7%) than stapes surgery (52.2%). Vertigo was lower in stapes surgery (8.8%) than in CI (12.8%). Hearing loss was lower in CI (16.4%) than stapes surgery (21.1%). CI had a significantly lower rate of revision surgery (8.1%) than stapes surgery (16.4%) in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis.
Sainz et al. and Semaan et al. found tinnitus 13.3%, 6.7% in patients with FAO after CI [25, 26]. Bajin et al. reported perilymph oozing led to total sensorineural hearing loss in one patient after stapes surgery which needed CI after that [27]. According to Heining et al. 7% of FAO patients needed revision of stapes surgery [5]. In Baijin’s study, CI was done in thirteen patients with FAO, seven of them had prior failed stapes surgeries [27].
Meta-analysis showed that CI had low rate of difficult access to area of cochleostomy (24.9%), significantly low rate of difficult insertion of electrode bundle (14.8%), low rate of facial electrical stimulation (12.4%) in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis.
Castillo et al. had one case of cochlear ossification out of seventeen patients with FAO who were managed by CI. The long-term results were similar to the other patients in spite of partial insertion [6]. Marshall et al. stated that FNS occurred in 17% of the patients with FAO after CI in comparison to control group. Management required deactivation of one or more implant electrodes [20]. Some studies showed rate of facial electrical stimulation in CI in FAO as 7% to 75%, with an average of 20%. Rotteveel et al. reported problems in electrode insertion during CI in FAO in 10 of 53 patients (3 misplacement, 7 electrode partial insertion) [22]. Semaan et al. showed that complete electrode insertion in CI was done in all the thirty-four patients with FAO of their study [26].
Our study showed that CI had a better mean for pure tone average (29.1 dB) than stapes surgery (52.3 dB). CI had a high significant mean for recognition of phrases (65.7%). Stapes surgery had a higher mean for recognition of monosyllables and disyllables in patients with far advanced otosclerosis (34%, 56.6%) than CI (28.1%, 55.2%). Stapes surgery had a higher significant mean for speech reception threshold (62.6 dB) than CI (43.7 dB).
Published data about speech recognition scores with CI in far advanced otosclerosis patients ranged from 45 to 98%. Many studies showed better hearing results with CI than with stapes surgery [3, 25]. According to Calmel’s et al., 36% had a disyllabic word recognition at 70 dB and 45% have a percentage of satisfaction after stapes surgery [3]. Shea et al. reported that 42% of patients, who had no preoperative bone conduction thresholds, showed measurable thresholds after stapes surgery [29].
On comparing speech reception score in FAO after CI and stapes surgery, Bajin et al. found no significant difference [27]. lovato’s 2020 reported speech reception threshold 36 dB and word reception score 94% in FAO after CI. Glasscock et al., Calmels et al. described poor mean speech recognition after stapes surgery with of 33% and 54% respectively [3, 14]. According to Kabbara et al., 60% of stapes surgery group and 85% of CI group had successful outcome (Word Reception Score greater than 50%) [16]. Berrettini et al. and Calmels et al. stated that CI leads to statistically better mean speech recognition scores than stapes surgery [3, 30].
Meta-analysis of relevant studies showed that CI had significantly higher satisfaction rate (86.3%) in patients with far advanced otosclerosis than stapedectomy (69.5%). According to Bajin et al., many patients who had hearing problems for years tend to choose CI as the best route to restore hearing [27].
The results of our meta-analysis showed that the outcomes and complications of cochlear implantation and stapes surgery in FAO patients have different results. In most of them, CI is considered highly favorable and recommended procedure than stapes surgery, other results declared no significant difference in postoperative outcomes. Patients must receive adequate counseling regarding all the factors mentioned above and the decision must be made by surgeons and the informed patients.
Conclusion
Both Stapes surgery and CI are reliable treatment options for FAO with close success rates. Statistics of CI are greater than stapes surgery and CI has a consistent improvement in audiometric outcomes in comparison to stapes surgery.
References
Eshraghi AA, Ila K, Ocak E, Telischi FF (2018) Advanced otosclerosis: stapes surgery or cochlear implantation? Otolaryngol Clin North Am 51(2):429–440
Liselotte JC, David WP, Richard TR (2004) Cochlear implantation in 53 patients with otosclerosis: demographics, computed tomographic scanning, surgery, and complications. Otol Neurotol 25:943–952
Calmels MN, Viana C, Wanna G et al (2007) Very far-advanced otosclerosis: stapedotomy or cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 127:574–578
Psillas G, Kyriafinis G, Constantinidis J, Vital V (2007) Far-advanced otosclerosis and cochlear implantation. B-ENT 3:67–71
Heining C, Banga R, Irving R, Coulson C, Monksfield P (2017) Audiological outcome of stapes surgery for far advanced cochlear otosclerosis. J Laryngol Otol 131:961–964
Castillo F, Polo R, Gutiérrez A, Reyes P, Royuela A, Alonso A (2014) Cochlear implantation outcomes in advanced otosclerosis. Am J Otolaryngol 35(5):558–564
Rama-López J, Cervera-Paz FJ, Manrique M (2006) Cochlear implantation of patients with far-advanced otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 27:153–158
Dumas AR, Schwalje AT, Franco-Vidal V, Bébéar JP, Darrouzet V, Bonnard D (2018) Cochlear implantation in far-advanced otosclerosis: hearing results and complications. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 38(5):445–452
Luca M, Massimilla EA, Americo M, Michele N, Donadio A, Gaetano M (2021) Stapes Surgery in Far-Advanced Otosclerosis. Ear Nose Throat J
Redfors YD, Möller C (2011) Otosclerosis: thirty-year follow-up after surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 120(9):608–614
Dejaco D, Prejban D, Fischer N, Freysinger W, Stephan K, Seebacher J, Widmann G, Riechelmann H, Schmutzhard J (2018) Successful cochlear implantation of a split electrode array in a patient with far-advanced otosclerosis assisted by electromagnetic navigation: a case report. Otol Neurotol 39(7):532–537
Frattali MA, Sataloff RT (1993) Far-advanced otosclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102(6):433–437
Ghonim MR, el-Degwy AA, el-Sharabasy AE. Far-advanced otosclerosis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1997 ;59(6):332–5
Glasscock ME, Storper IS, Haynes DS, Bohrer PS (1996) Stapedectomy in profound cochlear loss. Laryngoscope 106(7):831–833
Iurato S, Onofri M (1985) Speech discrimination in advanced otosclerosis following stapedectomy. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 47:37-41
Kabbara B, Gauche C, Calmels MN et al (2015) Decisive criteria between stapedotomy and cochlear implantation in patients with far advanced otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 36:e73–e78
Khalifa A, Guindy A, Erfan F (1998) Stapedectomy for far advanced otosclerosis. J Laryngol Otol 112:158–160
Lachance S, Bussières R, Côté M (2012) Stapes surgery in profound hearing loss due to otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 33(5):721–723
Lovato A, Marioni G, Gamberini L, Bonora C, Genovese E, de Filippis C (2020) OTOPLAN in cochlear implantation for far-advanced otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 41(8):e1024–e1028
Marshall AH, Fanning N, Symons S, Shipp D, Chen JM, Nedzelski JM (2005) Cochlear implantation in cochlear otosclerosis. Laryngoscope 115:1728–1733
Mosnier I, Bouccara D, Ambert-Dahan E, Ferrary E, Sterkers O (2007) Cochlear implantation and far-advanced otosclerosis. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 65(323):327
Rotteveel LJ, Proops DW, Ramsden RT, Saeed SR, van Olphen AF, Mylanus EA (2004) Cochlear implantation in 53 patients with otosclerosis: demographics, computed tomographic scanning, surgery, and complications. Otol Neurotol 25(6):943–952
Rotteveel LJ, Snik AF, Cooper H, Mawman DJ, van Olphen AF, Mylanus EA (2010) Speech perception after cochlear implantation in 53 patients with otosclerosis: multicentre results. Audiol Neurootol 15(2):128–136
Ruckenstein MJ, Rafter K, Montes M et al (2001) Management of far advanced otosclerosis in the era of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 22:471–474
Sainz M, Garcia-Valdecasas J, Ballesteros JM (2009) Complications and pitfalls of cochlear implantation in otosclerosis: a 6-year follow-up cohort study. Otol Neurotol 30:1044–1048
Semaan MT, Gehani NC, Tummala N et al (2012) Cochlear implantation outcomes in patients with far advanced otosclerosis. Am J Otolaryngol 33:608–614
Bajin MD, Ergün O, Çınar BÇ, Sennaroğlu L (2020) Management of far-advanced otosclerosis: stapes surgery or cochlear implant. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 58(1):35–40
Vashishth A, Fulcheri A, Rossi G, Prasad SC, Caruso A, Sanna M (2017) Cochlear implantation in otosclerosis: surgical and auditory outcomes with a brief on facial nerve stimulation. Otol Neurotol 38(9):e345–e353
Shea PF, Ge X, Shea JJ Jr (1999) Stapedectomy for far-advanced otosclerosis. Am J Otol 20(4):425–429
Berrettini S, Burdo S, Forli F, Ravecca F, Marcaccini M, Casani AP, Franceschini SS (2004) Far advanced otosclerosis: stapes surgery or cochlear implantation? J Otolaryngol 33(3):165–171
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The authors have no funding sources to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Teaima, A.A., Elnashar, A.A., Hakim, E.K. et al. Comparison of the efficacy of cochlear implantation and stapes surgery in far advanced otosclerosis: a meta-analysis study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280, 77–88 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07449-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07449-w