Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 7, pp 1907–1913 | Cite as

Is one of these two techniques: CO2 laser versus microdrill assisted stapedotomy results in better post-operative hearing outcome?

  • Nasser M. AltamamiEmail author
  • Gunther Huyghues des Etages
  • Maxime Fieux
  • Aurélie Coudert
  • Ruben Hermann
  • Sandra Zaouche
  • Eric Truy
  • Stéphane Tringali
Otology
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

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.

Study design

Retrospective audiometric database and chart review from January 2005 until December 2016.

Setting

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Bone conduction threshold change Otosclerosis-pure-tone average Sensorineural hearing loss CO2 laser-microdrill 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Funding

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Menger DJ, Tange RA (2003) The aetiology of otosclerosis: a review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 28(2):112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nazarian R, McElveen JT Jr, Eshraghi AA (2018) History of Otosclerosis and stapes surgery. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 51(2):275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mudry A (2006) Adam Politzer (1835–1920) and the description of otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 27(2):276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chole RA, McKenna M (2001) Pathophysiology of otosclerosis. Otol Neurotol 22(2):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holmgren G (1992) The surgery of otosclerosis. 1937. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101(7):546–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Lempert J (1938) Improvement of hearing in cases of otosclerosis: a new, one stage surgical technic. Arch Otolaryngol 28(1):42–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shea JJ Jr (1958) Fenestration of the oval window. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 67(4):932–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palva T (1987) Argon laser in otosclerosis surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 104(1–2):153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perkins RC (1980) Laser stepedotomy for otosclerosis. Laryngoscope 90(2):228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Wegner I, Kamalski DM, Tange RA, Vincent R, Stegeman I, van der Heijden GJ, Grolman W (2014) Laser versus conventional fenestration in stapedotomy for otosclerosis: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 124(7):1687–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Just T, Guder E, Pau HW (2012) Effect of the stapedotomy technique on early post-operative hearing results-preliminary results. Auris Nasus Larynx 39(4):383–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brase C, Keil I, Schwitulla J, Mantsopoulos K, Schmid M, Iro H, Hornung J (2013) Bone conduction after stapes surgery: comparison of CO2 laser and manual perforation. Otol Neurotol 34(5):821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cuda D, Murri A, Mochi P, Solenghi T, Tinelli N (2009) Microdrill, CO2-laser, and piezoelectric stapedotomy: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 30(8):1111–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc. (1995) Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113(3):186–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watson GJ, da Cruz M (2018) Reporting in stapes surgery: are we following the guidelines? J Laryngol Otol 132(6):479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ren DD, Chi FL (2008) Experimental study on thermic effects, morphology and function of guinea pig cochlea: acomparison between the erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and carbon dioxide laser. Lasers Surg Med 40(6):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loewenthal M, Jowett N, Busch CJ, Knecht R, Dalchow CV (2015) A comparison of hearing results following stapedotomy under local versus general anesthesia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(9):2121–2127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Markou K, Goudakos J (2009) An overview of the etiology of otosclerosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kishimoto M, Ueda H, Uchida Y, Sone M (2015) Factors affecting postoperative outcome in otosclerosis patients: predictive role of audiological and clinical features. Auris Nasus Larynx 42(5):369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    aWengen DF, Pfaltz CR, Uyar Y (1992) The influence of age on the results of stapedectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 249(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mann WJ, Amedee RG, Fuerst G, Tabb HG (1996) Hearing loss as a complication of stapes surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115(4):324–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavillon-Maisonnier C, Faure F, Plouin-Gaudon I, Truy E (2007) Labyrinthitis, or inflammatory pseudotumor after stapedectomy. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 124(6):322–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bernardeschi D, De Seta D, Canu G, Russo FY, Ferrary E, Lahlou G, Sterkers O (2018) Does the diameter of the stapes prosthesis really matter? A prospective clinical study. Laryngoscope 128(8):1922–1926.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27021 (Epub 2017 Nov 24) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wegner I, Eldaebes MM, Landry TG, Grolman W, Bance ML (2016) The effect of piston diameter in stapedotomy for otosclerosis: a temporal bone model. Otol Neurotol 37(10):1497–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dhooge I, Desmedt S, Maly T, Loose D, Van Hoecke H (2018) Long-term hearing results of stapedotomy: analysis of factors affecting outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275(5):1111–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, and OtoneurosurgeryCentre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology, Facial Plastic and Cervicofacial SurgeryHopital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations