Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T18:00:53.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revision stapes surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

B. K. Bhardwaj  and
S. K. Kacker
B. K. Bhardwaj
Affiliation:
New Delhi, India
S. K. Kacker*
Affiliation:
New Delhi, India
*
Dr S. K. Kacker, Professor & Head of Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110016. India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The records of 120 patients who had undergone revision stapedectomy were analyzed to determine: (i) the causes of failure; (ii) how to prevent failure by taking precautions during primary surgery; (iii) hearing results; and (iv) possible identifying factors which might pinpoint those patients with a high risk of sensorineural deafness.

A review of these cases demonstrates that the results of revision stapedectomy are different from those of primary stapedectomy. The commonest cause of failure was prosthetic dislocation (30.8 per cent), followed by fibrous adhesions (18.3 per cent) and otosclerotic regrowth (14.1 per cent). First revision operations resulted in post-operative bone-air gaps of 15 dB. or less in 46.5 per cent of cases, much better than 25 per cent for second revisions. Primary stapedectomy resulted in successful closure of the air-bone gap to 15 dB. or less in 89.5 per cent of cases.

The sensorineural loss occurred in 11.3 per cent or first revisions and in 16.6 per cent of second revisions, as compared to 1.3 per cent after primary surgery. “Dead ears” were encountered in 2.2 per cent of first revisions, as compared to nil in the primary group.

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 102 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 20 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, P. W. and Dawes, J. D. K. (1961) Necrosis of the lenticular process of incus after stapes surgery and its treatment. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 75: 821–825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Causse, J. (1965) Present problems in the surgery of otosclerosis. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 79: 265–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawes, J. D. K. and Curry, A. R. (1974) Types of stapedectomy failure and prognosis of revision operations. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 88: 213–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derlacki, E. L. (1985) Revision stapes surgery. Problems with some solutions. Laryngoscope, 95: 1047–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrior, J. B. (1962) In Schuknecht, Otosclerosis, H. F. Ed, Little Brown and Company Boston. MassachusettsI Ed, 500 pp.Google Scholar
Feldman, B. A. and Schuknecht, H. F. (1970) Experience with revision stapedectomy procedures. Laryngoscope. 80: 1281–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kacker, S. K. (1973) Etiopathology of delayed failure in stapedectomy two specific causes. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology, 25: 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kacker, S. K. (1978) Some aspects of otospongiosis. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology, 30: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawson, S. R. (1975) Management of complications of stapedectomy. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 89: 145–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearman, K. and Dawes, J. D. K. (1982) Post stapedectomy conductive deafness and results of revision surgery. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 96: 405–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shea, J. J. (1982) Stapedectomy. A long term report. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 91: 516–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheehy, J. L., Nelson, R. A. and House, H. P. (1981) Revision stapedectomy. A review of 258 cases. Laryngoscopoe, 91: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinha, A. (1966) Problems in revision stapedectomy. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology, 18: 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar