Is one of these two techniques: CO2 laser versus microdrill assisted stapedotomy results in better post-operative hearing outcome?
- 58 Downloads
To evaluate hearing results and outcome using two different surgical techniques (microdrill and CO2 Laser fenestration) in the treatment of conductive hearing loss in patients with otosclerosis.
Retrospective audiometric database and chart review from January 2005 until December 2016.
Two tertiary referral hospitals
Materials and methods
Seven-hundred forty-two primary stapedotomy have been reviewed retrospectively in two referral hospitals. This multicenter study compared 424 patients operated for otosclerosis with microdrill technique and 318 patients operated with CO2 laser assisted stapedotomy. Preoperative and postoperative audiological assessment (following the recommendations of the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium) were compared between the two groups at least 6 weeks and at 1 year or more. Measure of overclosure and hearing damage have been analyzed and compared between the groups.
There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data between the two groups and no statistically significant difference in hearing outcome between the two groups. CO2 Laser with 0.4 piston showed slightly better results to close the air–bone gap postoperatively to ≤ 10 dB (84% as compared with the 80% of patients operated with microdrill technique). Patients operated with microdrill technique and 0.6 piston have less damage to hearing at 4 kHz.
The use of CO2 laser seems associated with better postoperative air–bone gap closure. However, it carries more risk of hearing damage at 4 kHz at it is the case for the microdrill at 1 kHz. In general, postoperative hearing outcome using these two surgical techniques is comparable.
KeywordsBone conduction threshold change Otosclerosis-pure-tone average Sensorineural hearing loss CO2 laser-microdrill
We thank Pierre Pradat (Hôpital de la Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon) for help in statistical analysis, and Philip Robinson (DRCI, Hospices Civils de Lyon) for help in manuscript preparation.
The authors declare that no funding was received for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 6.Sourdille M (1937) New technique in the surgical treatment of severe and progressive deafness from otosclerosis. Bull N Y Acad Med 13(12):673–691Google Scholar
- 11.Barbara M, Lazzarino AI, Murè C, Macrì C, Volpini L, Monini S (2011) Laser versus drill-assisted stapedotomy for the treatment of otosclerosis: a randomized-controlled trial. Int Adv Otol 7:283–288Google Scholar
- 28.Somers T, Vercruysse JP, Zarowski A, Verstreken M, Schatteman I, Offeciers FE (2007) Transient depression of inner ear function after stapedotomy: skeeter versus CO(2) laser technique. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 65:267–272Google Scholar