Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic stapedotomy: a comparison between 4 mm and 3 mm nasal endoscope

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

Abstract

Background

Although, both the microscopic and endoscopic stapes surgery have claimed a parallel audiological outcome, the comparison between two standard endoscopes (4 mm and 3 mm) in endoscopic stapedotomy is not well documented. We have compared the clinical utility and audiological outcomes of the 3 mm and 4 mm rigid nasal endoscopes in the primary endoscopic stapedotomy.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective study conducted in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology between June 2015 and May 2018. Total 46 patients of primary otosclerosis had undergone endoscopic stapedotomy where 3 mm and 4 mm nasal endoscopes have been used in 22 (group A) and 24 patients (group B) respectively. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative surgical findings including the hearing outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

One patient (4.5%) in group A and 6 (25%) patients in group B required canaloplasty (p = 0.00, χ2 test) and 7 (31.18%) patients in group A and 18(75%) in group B had required curettage of the bony canal wall (p = 0.04, χ2 test). There was no significant difference in the air–bone gap between the two groups (p = 0.85).

Conclusion

Both 3 mm and 4 mm nasal endoscopes can be successfully used in the endoscopic stapedotomy providing a parallel visual field. Although, comparable results can be obtained in preserving the chorda tympani nerve, tympanic membrane, facial nerve, and postoperative giddiness including the audiological outcomes, the requirement of the canaloplasty and curettage of posterior bony canal can be significantly reduced in patients operated with 3 mm nasal endoscope, especially in patients with narrow/over angulated external auditory canal.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunter JB, Rivas A (2016) Outcomes following endoscopic stapes surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 49:1215–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kojima H, Komori M, Chikazawa S et al (2014) Comparison between endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery. Laryngoscope 124:266–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tarabichi M (1999) Endoscopic middle ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 108:39–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bottrill ID, Poe DS (1995) Endoscope-assisted ear surgery. Am J Otol 16:158–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sprout R, Yiannakis C, Iyer A (2017) Endoscopic stapes surgery: a comparison with microscopic surgery. Otol Neurotol 38(5):662–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sproat R, Yiannakis C, Iyer A (2017) Endoscopic stapes surgery: a comparison with microscopic surgery. Otol Neurotol 38:662–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hunter JB, Zuniga MG, Leite J et al (2016) Surgical and audiologic outcomes in endoscopic stapes surgery across 4 institutions. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 154:1093–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Naik C, Nemade S (2016) Endoscopic stapedotomy: our view point. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 273(1):37–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Neel GS, Kau RL, Bansberg SF, Lal D (2017) Comparison of 3 mm versus 4 mm rigid endoscope in diagnostic nasal endoscopy. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 3(1):32–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kojima H, Komori M, Chikazawa S, Yaguchi Y, Yamamoto K, Chujo K et al (2014) Comparison between endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery. Laryngoscope 124:266–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. NogueiraJúnior JF, Martins MJ, Aguiar CV, Pinheiro AI (2011) Fully endoscopic stapes surgery (stapedotomy): technique and preliminary results. Br J Otorhinolaryngol 77:721–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Migirov L, Wolf M (2013) Endoscopic transcanal stapedotomy: how I do it. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:1547–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nogueria Junior JF, Martin MJB, Aguiar CV, Pinheiro AI (2011) Fully endoscopic stapes surgery (stapedotomy): technique and preliminary results. Br J Otorhinolaryngol 77:721–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yung M, Smith P, Hausler R et al (2008) International common otology database: taste disturbance after stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol 29:661–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guder E, Bottcher A, Pau HW et al (2012) Taste function after stapes surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 39:562–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berling Holm K, Knutsson J, Stromback K et al (2017) Taste disturbance after stapes surgery: an evaluation of frequency, severity, duration, and quality-of-life. Acta Otolaryngol 137:39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vincent R, Sperling NM, Oates J, Jindal M (2006) Surgical findings and long-term hearing results in 3,050 stapedotomies for primary otosclerosis: a prospective study with the otology-neurotology database. Otol Neurotol 27:S25–S247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yung MW, Oates J, Vowler SL (2006) The learning curve in stapes surgery and its implication to training. Laryngoscope 16:67–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:186–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has received no financial grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751019, India

    Pradeep Pradhan & Chappity Preetam

Authors
  1. Pradeep Pradhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chappity Preetam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pradeep Pradhan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest among the authors.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed consent has been taken from each patient prior to the surgery and same has been informed to the institute reviewer board. No part of the body has been demonstrated in the case report without the permission of the concerned patient.

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

Pradhan, P., Preetam, C. Endoscopic stapedotomy: a comparison between 4 mm and 3 mm nasal endoscope. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276, 3035–3041 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05592-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05592-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation