-
European Archives of... Apr 2021This meta-analysis is aimed to review and analyze all available data of intraoperative and postoperative results of endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis is aimed to review and analyze all available data of intraoperative and postoperative results of endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery.
METHODS
According to the PRISMA statements checklist, this systematic review and meta-analysis were designed. Data were extracted from public databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and more. The quality of studies was evaluated using the MINORS scale. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated for binary outcome data, while the mean differences and 95% CIs were estimated for continuous data. I and χ tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity. If more than ten studies were included in each analysis, funnel plot would be performed to analysis publication bias.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 620 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes collected in this meta-analysis included average postoperative auditory gain (APAG), postoperative air-bone gap (ABG), the rate of chorda tympani handling and bone curettage, which all showed a statistically significant difference in favor of endoscopy. While only secondary outcomes about postoperative pain and dysgeusia demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence. Furthermore, there was not any statistically significant difference on postoperative dizziness and average operative time between endoscopy and microscopy.
CONCLUSION
Although there is a need for high-quality pooled data in the future, a consistently superior effect of the endoscopic group was still shown in terms of total effectiveness, when compared to the microscopic group. We have reasons to support the application of endoscopy in stapes surgery. The future of ESS, we believe, is blazing bright.
Topics: Endoscopy; Humans; Microscopy; Operative Time; Otosclerosis; Reference Standards; Retrospective Studies; Stapes; Stapes Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32648030
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06132-2 -
European Archives of... Dec 2022To compare the efficacy and safety characteristics of different materials used for oval window sealing during stapedotomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety characteristics of different materials used for oval window sealing during stapedotomy.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Published international English literature from January 1, 2000 to December 2021 was screened, checking for studies that compared different materials utilization in patients undergoing stapedotomy surgery for otosclerosis or congenital stapes fixation. Data related to the efficacy and safety of each material were extracted. The primary outcome measure was the air-bone gap (ABG) closure after surgical intervention.
RESULTS
Six studies were included in the metanalysis. Because of the heterogeneity of the treatments adopted, we assessed the use of the fat compared to all other treatments, and the use of the gelfoam compared to all other treatments. In the former analysis (fat vs others) we did not identify differences in ABG closure between the groups (p = 0.74), with a low heterogeneity of the results (I = 28.36%; Hedge's g = 0.04, 95% CI - 0.19 0.27); similarly, we did not identify differences between the use of gelfoam and other treatments (p = 0.97), with a low heterogeneity of the results (I = 28.91%; Hedge's g = 0.00, 95% CI - 0.20 0.21).
CONCLUSIONS
Numerous options are available for oval window sealing during stapedotomy, with acceptable safety and effectiveness profiles. Based on the current data, no definitive recommendation can be made regarding the choice of one material over another, and the convenience of sealing over no sealing at all.
Topics: Humans; Stapes Surgery; Otosclerosis; Gelatin Sponge, Absorbable; Ear, Middle; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Stapes
PubMed: 35857099
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07551-z -
European Archives of... Oct 2023To review hearing and surgical outcomes after reconstructive middle ear surgery in class 4 congenital middle ear anomalies (CMEA), e.g., patients with oval- or round... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review hearing and surgical outcomes after reconstructive middle ear surgery in class 4 congenital middle ear anomalies (CMEA), e.g., patients with oval- or round window atresia of dysplasia.
DATA SOURCES
Pubmed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane library.
REVIEW METHODS
Articles containing data on hearing outcomes and complications after reconstructive ear surgery in class 4 anomalies were analyzed and critically appraised. The following data were included and reviewed: patient demographics, audiometric testing, surgical techniques, complications, revision surgeries and their outcomes. Risk of bias was determined, and GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed. Primary outcomes were postoperative air conduction thresholds (AC), change in AC, and success rates (closure of the ABG to within 20 dB), the occurrence of complications (most importantly sensorineural hearing loss) and the long-term stability of hearing results (> 6-month follow-up) and occurrence of recurrence of preoperative hearing loss.
RESULTS
Success rates varied from 12.5 to 75% at long-term follow-up with larger cohorts reporting success rates around 50%, mean postoperative gain in AC varied from 4.7 to 30 dB and - 8.6 to 23.6 dB at, respectively, short- and long-term follow-up. No postoperative change in hearing occurred in 0-33.3% of ears, and recurrence of hearing loss occurred in 0-66.7% of ears. SNHL occurred in a total of seven ears across all studies of which three experienced complete hearing loss.
CONCLUSION
Reconstructive surgery can be an effective treatment option which should be considered in patients with very favorable baseline parameters, while also considering the substantial risk of recurrence of hearing loss, the possibility of unchanged hearing despite surgery and the rare occurrence of SNHL.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
2c.
Topics: Humans; Ear Ossicles; Ear, Middle; Ear; Treatment Outcome; Hearing Loss, Conductive; Deafness; Retrospective Studies; Ossicular Prosthesis
PubMed: 37410147
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-023-08091-w -
Foot and Ankle Surgery : Official... Oct 2022The primary aim was to determine the clinical success rate after treatment for talocalcaneal (TCC) and calcaneonavicular coalitions (CNC). The secondary aim was to...
BACKGROUND
The primary aim was to determine the clinical success rate after treatment for talocalcaneal (TCC) and calcaneonavicular coalitions (CNC). The secondary aim was to evaluate the complication, recurrence and revision rate.
METHODS
A search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Methodological quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) criteria. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate and was pooled per type of coalition and treatment modality. 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the success rates were calculated. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, coalition recurrence rates, revision rates and pain improvement using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A sub-analysis on interposition material was performed.
RESULTS
43 articles comprising of 1284 coalitions were included, with a pooled mean follow-up of 51 months. Methodological quality was fair. The overall pooled success rate for TCCs was 79% (95% CI, 75%-83%). Conservative treatment, open resection and arthroscopic resection of TCCs resulted in success rates of 58% (95% CI, 42%-73%), 80% (95% CI, 76%-84%) and 86% (95% CI, 71%-94%), respectively. CNCs have an overall success rate of 81% (95% CI, 75%-85%), with 100% (95% CI, 34%-100%), 80% (95% CI, 74%-85%) and 100% (95% CI, 65%-100%) for conservative treatment, open resection and arthroscopic resection, respectively. Pooled complication rates of 4% (95% CI, 3%-7%) for TCCs and 6% (95% CI, 4%-11%) for CNCs were found. The success rates of resection with and without interposition material for TCCs were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%) and 79% (95% CI, 65%-88%), and for CNCs 81% (95% CI, 76%-86%) and 69% (95% CI, 44%-85%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Treatment of tarsal coalitions can be considered good to excellent as well as safe, with an overall clinical success rate of 79% for TCCs and 81% for CNCs. Arthroscopic resection of the coalition appears to be non-inferior to open resection of TCCs and CNCs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, Systematic Review.
Topics: Carpal Bones; Foot Deformities, Congenital; Hand Deformities, Congenital; Humans; Stapes; Synostosis; Tarsal Bones; Tarsal Coalition
PubMed: 35397990
DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2022.03.011 -
European Archives of... Jan 2023This study is to compare the hearing outcomes and complications of stapes surgery and cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis (FAO). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study is to compare the hearing outcomes and complications of stapes surgery and cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with far-advanced otosclerosis (FAO).
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library was conducted in June 2021 for articles in the literature till this year.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies are published in English language, conducted on human subjects, concerned with comparison of CI and stapes surgery in the management of FAO, not Laboratory study and not Opinion study. The current review followed the guidelines of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement 2009 (PRISMA).
DATA EXTRACTION
Twenty-six studies were included with 334 patients in CI group and 241 patients in stapes surgery group. Comparison between both groups was done in terms of postoperative complications, audiological outcomes, rete of revision surgery and patients' satisfaction rate.
RESULTS
Postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in CI (13.6%) than stapes surgery (18.6%). CI had a significantly lower rate of revision surgery (8.1%) than stapes surgery (16.4%). CI had a better mean for pure tone average (29.1 dB) than stapedectomy (52.3 dB) while stapes surgery had a higher mean for recognition of monosyllables and disyllables than CI. CI had significantly higher satisfaction rate than stapes surgery.
CONCLUSION
Both Stapes surgery and CI are reliable treatment options for FAO with close success rates. Statistics of CI are greater than stapes surgery and CI has a consistent improvement in audiometric outcomes in comparison to stapes surgery.
Topics: Humans; Cochlear Implantation; Otosclerosis; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Stapes; Stapes Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35687184
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07449-w