Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conventional approaches versus laser CO2 surgery in stapes surgery: a multicentre retrospective study

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze and compare surgical and audiological outcomes of conventional approaches versus laser CO2 surgery in stapes surgery.

Methods

333 patients who underwent stapes surgery were enrolled in the study; the patient population was divided into three groups: group 1: 170 patients treated with conventional stapedotomy with manual microdrill (average age 49.13 years); group 2: 119 patients treated with conventional stapedotomy with electrical microdrill (average age 51.06 years); group 3: 44 patients (average age 50.4 years) who underwent CO2 laser stapedotomy. Intra-operative, postoperative outcomes and audiological results were investigated.

Results

The average surgical time of laser CO2 surgery was longer than for other surgical procedures. No statistical differences emerged in post-operative abnormal taste sensation. There was also no difference in postoperative dizziness. Air-bone gap (ABG) went down from 29.7 ± 10 dB (group 1) and 27.32 ± 9.20 (group 2) to 10 ± 6.9 dB (group 1) and 10.7 ± 6.03 dB (group 2). In group 3 the preoperative ABG was lowered from 28.3 ± 10.1 to 11.8 ± 10.9, with a statistical difference in auditory recovery (p = 0.0001); The group of patients treated with laser CO2 showed a percentage of patients with an ABG closure of between 0 and 10 dB higher than in the group treated with manual microdrills (77.2% vs. 60%, respectively; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Overall surgical results of CO2 laser and conventional stapedotomy are comparable without any significant difference; however, the group treated with CO2 laser appears to have a percentage of patients with an ABG closure 0–10 dB higher than the group treated using the conventional technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eshraghi AA, Telischi FF (2018) Otosclerosis and stapes surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 51(2):xvii–ix

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nazarian R, McElveen JT Jr, Eshraghi AA (2018) History of otosclerosis and stapes surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 51:275–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Iannella G, Angeletti D, Manno A, Pasquariello B, Re M, Magliulo G (2018) Malleostapedotomy in stapes revision surgery: is an endoscopic approach possible? Laryngoscope 128:2611–2614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sevy A, Arriaga M (2018) The stapes prosthesis: past, present, and future. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 51:393–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yeh CF, Wang MC, Chu CH, Shiao AS (2019) Predictors of hearing outcomes after stapes surgery in otosclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol 139:1058–1062

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Young E, Mitchell-Innes A, Jindal M (2015) Lasers in stapes surgery: a review. J Laryngol Otol 129:627–633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Iannella G, Magliulo G (2016) Endoscopic versus microscopic approach in stapes surgery: are operative times and learning curve important for making the choice? Otol Neurotol 37:1350–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pauli N, Strömbäck K, Lundman L, Dahlin-Redfors Y (2020) Surgical technique in stapedotomy hearing outcome and complications. Laryngoscope 130:790–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Iannella G, Marcotullio D, Re M, Manno A et al (2017) Endoscopic vs. microscopic approach in stapes surgery: advantages in the middle ear structures visualization and trainees point of view. J Int Adv Otol 13:14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lancer H, Manickavasagam J, Zaman A, Lancer J (2016) Stapes surgery: a national survey of British otologists. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:371–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boyev KP (2018) Use of lasers in otosclerosis surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 51:405–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bartel R, Huguet G, Cruellas F, Hamdan M, Gonzalez-Compta X, Cisa E (2021) Laser vs drill for footplate fenestration during stapedotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hearing results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278:9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Forton GE, Wuyts FL, Delsupehe KG, Verfaillie J, Loncke R (2009) CO2 laser-assisted stapedotomy combined with a Wengen titanium clip stapes prosthesis: superior short-term results. Otol Neurotol 30:1071–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Du LJ, Gao HG, Tong J, Chen WW, Shan L, Cai XH (2017) Comparative analysis of laser and non-laser stapes surgeries. J Int Adv Otol 13:32–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Altamami NM, Huyghues G, Fieux M et al (2019) Is one of these two techniques: CO2laser versus microdrill assisted stapedotomy results in better post-operative hearing outcome? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276:1907–1913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Monsell E, Balkany T, Gates G, Goldenberg RA, Meyerhoff WL, House JW (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:186–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Watson GJ, da Cruz M (2018) Reporting in stapes surgery: are we following the guidelines? J Laryngol Otol 132:479–485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Srivastava R, Cho W, Fergie N (2021) The use of lasers in stapes surgery. Ear Nose Throat J 100:73–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuo CW, Wu HM (2018) Fully endoscopic laser stapedotomy: is it comparable with microscopic surgery? Acta Otolaryngol 138:871–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schönfeld U, Weiming H, Hofmann VM, Jovanovic S, Albers AE (2017) CO2laser stapedotomy safety: influence of laser energy and time on bone-conduction hearing levels. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:4131–4139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ryan S, Thornton MA, Kieran S, Charles D (2009) A comparison of CO2 laser versus traditional stapedectomy outcomes. Ir Med J 102:218–220

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brase C, Keil I, Schwitulla J et al (2013) Bone conduction after stapes surgery: comparison of CO2 laser and manual perforation. Otol Neurotol 34:821–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Perkins RC (1980) Laser stepedotomy for otosclerosis. Laryngoscope 90:228–240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fang L, Lin H, Zhang TY, Tan J (2014) Laser versus non-laser stapedotomy in otosclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Auris Nasus Larynx 4:337–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wegner I, Swartz JE, Bance ML, Grolman W (2016) A systematic review of the effect of different crimping techniques in stapes surgery for otosclerosis. Laryngoscope 126:1207–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cuda D, Murri A, Mochi P, Solenghi T, Tinelli N (2009) Microdrill, CO2-laser, and piezoelectric stapedotomy: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 30:1111–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaul VF, Chow K, Estrera SL, Schwam ZG, Wanna GB (2020) Microdrill in endoscopic stapes surgery: is it safe? Am J Otolaryngol 41:102666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Iannella G, De Vincentiis M, Greco A et al (2019) Endoscopic approach in second stage ossicular chain reconstruction. Am J Otolaryngol 40:735–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Watson GJ, Byth K, da Cruz M (2015) Outcomes in stapedotomy surgery: the learning curve redefined. Otol Neurotol 36(10):1601–1603

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Head-Neck Surgery, Otolaryngology, Head-Neck and Oral Surgery Unit, “Santa Maria Delle Croci” Hospital, Ravenna, Italy

    Andrea De Vito, Francesco Soprani & Valeria Roustan

  2. Department of Otolaryngology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy

    Marco Mandalà, Francesca Viberti & Ludovica Livi

  3. Department of Head-Neck Surgery, Otolaryngology, Head-Neck and Oral Surgery Unit, Morgagni Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy

    Giannicola Iannella & Claudio Vicini

  4. Department ENT and Audiology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Stefano Pelucchi, Gloria Napoli & Claudio Vicini

  5. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies “GF Ingrassia,” ENT Section, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Antonino Maniaci & Salvatore Cocuzza

  6. Via Satrico 7, 00183, Rome, Italy

    Giannicola Iannella

Authors
  1. Andrea De Vito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Mandalà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Soprani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giannicola Iannella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valeria Roustan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesca Viberti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ludovica Livi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stefano Pelucchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gloria Napoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Antonino Maniaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Salvatore Cocuzza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Claudio Vicini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giannicola Iannella.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Vito, A., Mandalà, M., Soprani, F. et al. Conventional approaches versus laser CO2 surgery in stapes surgery: a multicentre retrospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279, 2321–2327 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06926-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06926-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation