ENTtoday
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Practice Focus
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Departments
    • Issue Archive
    • TRIO Best Practices
      • Allergy
      • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
      • Head and Neck
      • Laryngology
      • Otology/Neurotology
      • Pediatric
      • Rhinology
      • Sleep Medicine
    • Career Development
    • Case of the Month
    • Everyday Ethics
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Medical Education
    • Online Exclusives
    • Practice Management
    • Resident Focus
    • Rx: Wellness
    • Special Reports
    • Tech Talk
    • Viewpoint
    • What’s Your O.R. Playlist?
  • Literature Reviews
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Events
    • Featured Events
    • TRIO Meetings
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Triological Society
    • Advertising Staff
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise
    • Place an Ad
    • Classifieds
    • Rate Card
  • Search

Audiologic and Surgical Outcomes in Endoscopic Revision Stapes Surgery

by Ashley M. Nassiri, MD, MBA, Robert J. Yawn, MD, Matthew M. Dedmon, MD, PhD, Anthony M. Tolisano, MD, Jacob B. Hunter, MD, Brandon Isaacson, MD, and Alejandro Rivas, MD • September 11, 2020

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

Main Point

This case series describes the presentation, clinical course, and outcomes of six patients who underwent endoscopic revision stapes surgery. The results suggest that endoscopic revision stapes surgery is feasible and may provide a platform for a larger study to validate the efficacy of this approach with long-term outcomes. 

You Might Also Like

  • Bone Cement and Revision Stapedectomy
  • Bone Cement Superiority in Ossicular Chain Reconstruction/ Revision Stapes Surgery Not Supported by Evidence
  • Endoscopic Stapes Surgery Is a Valid Alternative to the Microscope
  • Laser vs. Manual Penetration of Stapes Footplate
Explore This Issue
September 2020

Introduction

When compared to primary stapes surgery, revision stapes surgery has been reported to result in less favorable surgical and audiologic outcomes, with an increased risk of postoperative sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) (Otol Neurotol. 2010;31:875–882). Due to the presence of altered anatomy, adhesions, and a previously manipulated oval window, revision stapes surgery is technically challenging. Prior studies have shown that the most common causes of failure after primary stapes surgery include prosthesis dislocation, short or long prosthesis, incus erosion or dislocation, perilymphatic fistula, and ankylosis of the lateral ossicular chain (Otol Neurotol. 2010;31:875–882. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:373–383. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:1092–1100. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27(suppl 2):S25–S47) The success of revision stapes surgery relies on intraoperative identification of the cause for initial surgical failure because a lack of diagnosis has been correlated with negative outcomes (Laryngoscope. 2018;128:2390–2396). Consequently, adequate visualization and evaluation of the ossicular chain and oval window are essential to accurately diagnose and treat the cause of failure.

An endoscopic approach to stapes surgery allows for enhanced visualization of the ossicular chain and oval window (Otol Neurotol. 2016;37:362–366. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:266–271. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2016;49:1215–1225. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39:1095–1101). Additionally, endoscopy of the middle ear has been especially useful in diagnosing ossicular malformations (Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:1723–1729), perilymphatic fistulas (Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1994;514:63–65), and ossicular fixation (Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;96:21–24. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37:1071–1076).

Although prior studies have demonstrated similar audiologic and surgical outcomes between endoscopic and microscopic approaches for primary stapes surgery (Laryngoscope. 2014;124:266–271. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38:662–666. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154:1093–1098), endoscopic outcomes for revision stapes surgery have not been previously reported. This case series describes the presentation, clinical course, and outcomes of six patients who underwent endoscopic revision stapes surgery. 

Preoperative Demographics and Intraoperative Findings

PatientAgeSexEarPrior
Stapes
Surgery (n)
Preoperative CT FindingsIntraoperative FindingsInterventionProsthesisPostoperative
Complications
147FL1Displaced prosthesisDisplaced prosthesisLaser stapedotomy, longer prosthesisNitinol piston-
263FL1-Missing prosthesis, Incus necrosisLaser stapedotomy, longer prosthesisNitinol piston (malleus to
fenestra)
-
382FL1Normal prosthesis positioningDisplaced prosthesis, prolapsed facial nerveLaser stapedotomy, longer prosthesisNitinol pistonTemporary dysgeusia
419FL1-Short prosthesis without incus contactLaser stapedotomy,
longer prosthesis
Nitinol piston-
557MR3-Displaced prosthesis, malleus fixation, incus necrosisLaser stapedectomy, longer prosthesisTitanium bucket handle-
651ML1Displaced prosthesis onlyDisplaced prosthesis, oval and round window otosclerosisStapedectomy, oval window drill-outTitanium bucket handleLabyrinthitis resolved with steroids
CT = computed tomography; F = female; L = left.

CT = computed tomography; F = female; L = left.

Methods

Following institutional review board (IRB) approval (IRB 171214, 022012-060.2), a retrospective chart review was performed of all adult patients who underwent endoscopic stapes surgery at two tertiary care otologic centers between 2014 and 2017. Patients who had a history of prior stapes surgery who underwent totally endoscopic revision stapes surgery were included in the study (three patients from each institution).

Patient demographics, clinical course, and audiologic data—including unaided air conduction thresholds, bone conduction (BC) thresholds, and speech discrimination scores—were recorded from the medical record. For each case, the cause of surgical failure was identified intraoperatively. Postoperative outcome variables included postoperative complications, prosthesis extrusion, dysgeusia, and tympanic membrane (TM) retraction or perforation. All patients had preoperative and at least six weeks of postoperative audiologic data. Audiometric testing and calculations were conducted as previously described (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154:1093–1098). Audiometric data herein are presented according to the 1995 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery consensus guidelines. Postoperative SNHL was defined as an increase in average unaided BC thresholds (at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz) > 15 dB HL.4

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page

Filed Under: Departments, How I Do It Tagged With: clinical ourcomes, clinical researchIssue: September 2020

You Might Also Like:

  • Bone Cement and Revision Stapedectomy
  • Bone Cement Superiority in Ossicular Chain Reconstruction/ Revision Stapes Surgery Not Supported by Evidence
  • Endoscopic Stapes Surgery Is a Valid Alternative to the Microscope
  • Laser vs. Manual Penetration of Stapes Footplate

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

The Laryngoscope
Ensure you have all the latest research at your fingertips; Subscribe to The Laryngoscope today!

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Open access journal in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery is currently accepting submissions.

Classifieds

View the classified ads »

TRIO Best Practices

View the TRIO Best Practices »

Top Articles for Residents

  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Why More MDs, Medical Residents Are Choosing to Pursue Additional Academic Degrees
  • What Physicians Need to Know about Investing Before Hiring a Financial Advisor
  • Tips to Help You Regain Your Sense of Self
  • Should USMLE Step 1 Change from Numeric Score to Pass/Fail?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Experts Delve into Treatment Options for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • Non-Acidic Reflux Explains Lack of Response to H2 Blockers and PPIs
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • New Developments in the Management of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Eustachian Tuboplasty: A Potential New Option for Chronic Tube Dysfunction and Patulous Disease
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Why Virtual Grand Rounds May Be Here to Stay
    • Otolaryngologist Leverages His Love of Pinball into Second Business
    • These New Imaging Advances May Help to Protect Parathyroids
    • Is the Training and Cost of a Fellowship Worth It? Here’s What Otolaryngologists Say
    • Which Otologic Procedures Poses the Greatest Risk of Aerosol Generation?

Polls

Have you used 3D-printed materials in your otolaryngology practice?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Visit: The Triological Society • The Laryngoscope • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology

Wiley
© 2021 The Triological Society. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN 1559-4939

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
This site uses cookies: Find out more.