Is one of these two techniques: CO2 laser versus microdrill assisted stapedotomy results in better post-operative hearing outcome?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hearing results and outcome using two different surgical techniques (microdrill and CO2 Laser fenestration) in the treatment of conductive hearing loss in patients with otosclerosis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective audiometric database and chart review from January 2005 until December 2016. SETTING: Two tertiary referral hospitals MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven-hundred forty-two primary stapedotomy have been reviewed retrospectively in two referral hospitals. This multicenter study compared 424 patients operated for otosclerosis with microdrill technique and 318 patients operated with CO2 laser assisted stapedotomy. Preoperative and postoperative audiological assessment (following the recommendations of the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium) were compared between the two groups at least 6 weeks and at 1 year or more. Measure of overclosure and hearing damage have been analyzed and compared between the groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data between the two groups and no statistically significant difference in hearing outcome between the two groups. CO2 Laser with 0.4 piston showed slightly better results to close the air-bone gap postoperatively to ≤ 10 dB (84% as compared with the 80% of patients operated with microdrill technique). Patients operated with microdrill technique and 0.6 piston have less damage to hearing at 4 kHz. CONCLUSION: The use of CO2 laser seems associated with better postoperative air-bone gap closure. However, it carries more risk of hearing damage at 4 kHz at it is the case for the microdrill at 1 kHz. In general, postoperative hearing outcome using these two surgical techniques is comparable.

A comparative retrospective study: hypoglossofacial versus masseterofacial nerve anastomosis using Sunnybrook facial grading system.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study is to compare the functional results between two surgical techniques for reanimation of facial paralysis: hypoglossal-to-facial versus masseteric-to-facial nerve anastomosis. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 13 patients treated for complete facial paralysis in two medical tertiary centers. The patients were classified into two groups. First group: masseteric-to-facial nerve anastomosis. Second group: hypoglossofacial nerve anastomosis. Sunnybrook facial grading system was used to evaluate the functional results. The mean scores were compared using Mann-Whitney test. The correlation between the age at surgery, the delay in time from the onset of the facial paralysis to the time of surgery and the results of Sunnybrook scores was studied using correlation and linear regression. RESULTS: No significant statistical difference was found between the mean of total score of the two groups (first group = 38 ± 4.898, second group = 37.83 ± 4.956). All the patients treated by hypoglossofacial nerve anastomosis presented with hemiglossal atrophy. We found slight superiority for the masseterofacial nerve anastomosis in dynamic movements, whereas at rest the hypoglossofacial anastomosis is slightly better. All the differences were not statistically significant. No correlation was found between the age at surgery (age range included 32-73 years) and post-operative results. No correlation was found between the delays up to 24 months from the onset of the facial paralysis and post-operative results. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that both types of anastomosis are effective with comparable results. The masseterofacial nerve anastomosis is preferred when possible to avoid the hemiglossal atrophy and its complications.