Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2000
Revision stapedectomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De La Cruz A, Fayad J N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate results of revision stapedectomy with and without use of the laser and determine factors predictive of hearing outcome.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review of 356 revision stapedectomy operations performed at the House Ear Clinic, a tertiary neurotologic private practice, between 1983 and 1995.
RESULTS: A postoperative gap of < or =10 dB was obtained in 60% of cases. Results were similar with and without the use of a laser. Sensorineural hearing loss of >10 dB occurred in 7.7%, with 3 (1.4%) ears with profound hearing loss. A poorer outcome was related to incus necrosis, multiple revisions, and indications for surgery other than conductive hearing loss.
CONCLUSION: Revision stapedectomy can provide good gap closure in 60% of cases, with small risk of sensorineural hearing loss.
SIGNIFICANCE: Although not as satisfactory as primary stapedectomy, revision stapedectomy can be offered to patients with reasonable expectations for good gap closure.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review of 356 revision stapedectomy operations performed at the House Ear Clinic, a tertiary neurotologic private practice, between 1983 and 1995.
RESULTS: A postoperative gap of < or =10 dB was obtained in 60% of cases. Results were similar with and without the use of a laser. Sensorineural hearing loss of >10 dB occurred in 7.7%, with 3 (1.4%) ears with profound hearing loss. A poorer outcome was related to incus necrosis, multiple revisions, and indications for surgery other than conductive hearing loss.
CONCLUSION: Revision stapedectomy can provide good gap closure in 60% of cases, with small risk of sensorineural hearing loss.
SIGNIFICANCE: Although not as satisfactory as primary stapedectomy, revision stapedectomy can be offered to patients with reasonable expectations for good gap closure.