镫骨切除术还是镫骨切除术?这真的重要吗?

IF 1 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology Pub Date : 2025-01-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1792086
Francisco Teixeira-Marques, Rita Vaz Osório, Mónica Teixeira, Joana Rebelo, Sandra Gerós, Diamantino Helena, António Faria de Almeida, Pedro Oliveira
{"title":"镫骨切除术还是镫骨切除术?这真的重要吗?","authors":"Francisco Teixeira-Marques, Rita Vaz Osório, Mónica Teixeira, Joana Rebelo, Sandra Gerós, Diamantino Helena, António Faria de Almeida, Pedro Oliveira","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1792086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Otosclerosis leads to stapes fixation and consequent conductive hearing loss. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, and it can be achieved through small fenestra stapedotomy or stapedectomy. Despite the first being favored by most, evidence supporting its superiority over the latter remains inconclusive. <b>Objective</b>  To assess the hearing outcomes and complications of stapes surgery performed in a series of patients with otosclerosis and compare the results of stapedotomy with stapedectomy. <b>Methods</b>  A retrospective study of 134 ears in 125 otosclerosis patients undergoing primary stapes surgery was conducted. Patients underwent either stapedotomy or stapedectomy, and outcomes were compared using pre- and postoperative audiometric data and complication rates. <b>Results</b>  Most cases (81%) underwent stapedotomy. Both techniques resulted in significant improvement in air-bone gap (ABG) and speech recognition threshold (SRT) postoperatively, with no significant difference between them. Complication rates were comparable between techniques, with no statistical difference in postoperative complications. <b>Conclusion</b>  Both stapedotomy and stapedectomy offer favorable hearing outcomes with low complication rates in otosclerosis patients. While stapedotomy remains the preferred technique, if the initial plan shifts to a stapedectomy, surgeons should remain composed and confident in a good hearing outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":13731,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","volume":"29 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723788/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stapedotomy or Stapedectomy: Does It Really Matter?\",\"authors\":\"Francisco Teixeira-Marques, Rita Vaz Osório, Mónica Teixeira, Joana Rebelo, Sandra Gerós, Diamantino Helena, António Faria de Almeida, Pedro Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1792086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Otosclerosis leads to stapes fixation and consequent conductive hearing loss. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, and it can be achieved through small fenestra stapedotomy or stapedectomy. Despite the first being favored by most, evidence supporting its superiority over the latter remains inconclusive. <b>Objective</b>  To assess the hearing outcomes and complications of stapes surgery performed in a series of patients with otosclerosis and compare the results of stapedotomy with stapedectomy. <b>Methods</b>  A retrospective study of 134 ears in 125 otosclerosis patients undergoing primary stapes surgery was conducted. Patients underwent either stapedotomy or stapedectomy, and outcomes were compared using pre- and postoperative audiometric data and complication rates. <b>Results</b>  Most cases (81%) underwent stapedotomy. Both techniques resulted in significant improvement in air-bone gap (ABG) and speech recognition threshold (SRT) postoperatively, with no significant difference between them. Complication rates were comparable between techniques, with no statistical difference in postoperative complications. <b>Conclusion</b>  Both stapedotomy and stapedectomy offer favorable hearing outcomes with low complication rates in otosclerosis patients. While stapedotomy remains the preferred technique, if the initial plan shifts to a stapedectomy, surgeons should remain composed and confident in a good hearing outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13731,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723788/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1792086\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1792086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

耳硬化导致镫骨固定和传导性听力丧失。手术是治疗的主要手段,可通过小窗镫骨切除术或镫骨切除术来实现。尽管前者受到大多数人的青睐,但支持其优于后者的证据仍然没有定论。目的评价镫骨切除术治疗耳硬化症患者的听力效果及并发症,并比较镫骨切除术与镫骨切除术的效果。方法对125例行初级镫骨手术的耳硬化患者134耳进行回顾性分析。患者接受镫骨切除术或镫骨切除术,使用术前和术后听力学数据和并发症发生率比较结果。结果多数病例(81%)行镫骨切开术。两种技术均可显著改善术后的气骨间隙(ABG)和语音识别阈值(SRT),两者之间无显著差异。两种技术之间的并发症发生率具有可比性,术后并发症无统计学差异。结论镫骨切除术和镫骨切除术对耳硬化症患者的听力效果良好,并发症发生率低。虽然镫骨切除术仍然是首选的技术,但如果最初的计划转变为镫骨切除术,外科医生应该保持镇静,并对良好的听力结果充满信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Stapedotomy or Stapedectomy: Does It Really Matter?

Introduction  Otosclerosis leads to stapes fixation and consequent conductive hearing loss. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, and it can be achieved through small fenestra stapedotomy or stapedectomy. Despite the first being favored by most, evidence supporting its superiority over the latter remains inconclusive. Objective  To assess the hearing outcomes and complications of stapes surgery performed in a series of patients with otosclerosis and compare the results of stapedotomy with stapedectomy. Methods  A retrospective study of 134 ears in 125 otosclerosis patients undergoing primary stapes surgery was conducted. Patients underwent either stapedotomy or stapedectomy, and outcomes were compared using pre- and postoperative audiometric data and complication rates. Results  Most cases (81%) underwent stapedotomy. Both techniques resulted in significant improvement in air-bone gap (ABG) and speech recognition threshold (SRT) postoperatively, with no significant difference between them. Complication rates were comparable between techniques, with no statistical difference in postoperative complications. Conclusion  Both stapedotomy and stapedectomy offer favorable hearing outcomes with low complication rates in otosclerosis patients. While stapedotomy remains the preferred technique, if the initial plan shifts to a stapedectomy, surgeons should remain composed and confident in a good hearing outcome.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Otorhinolaryngology Foundation: Three Decades of Excellence in Education, Research, and Scientific Advancement. Change in Symptoms and Mucosal Findings after Proton Pump Inhibitor in Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux. The Near Point of Convergence in Patients with Vestibular Migraine. Myofunctional Therapy for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Comparison of Graft Uptake in Perforated Eardrums with and without Myringosclerosis: A Prospective Case-control Study in a Tertiary Centre.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1