European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 11, pp 2975–2982 | Cite as

Stapes surgery leads to significant improvement in quality of life, independently from the surgical method: evaluation of stapes surgery using different prostheses and different quality of life measurements

  • Nora M. WeissEmail author
  • Sophie Schuldt
  • Wilma Großmann
  • Tobias Oberhoffner
  • Christian Ginzkey
  • Sebastian P. Schraven
  • Robert Mlynski



To compare quality-of-life (QoL) measurements with audiological results after stapes surgery with two different prostheses.


This is a retrospective longitudinal study. All patients required stapes surgery for otosclerosis and ossicular chain reconstruction with either a titanium band prothesis (TBP) or receiving a nitinol head prosthesis (NHP). Intervention was between January 2011 and March 2017 patients received stapes-surgery with either TBP (n = 95) or NHP (n = 50). Audiological measurements at three different time points (preoperatively, early follow up < 3 months, late follow-up > 3 months) were compared and two different QoL-inventories, the Glasgow-Benefit-Inventory (GBI) and the Stapes-Plasty-Outcome-Test-25 (SPOT-25) were investigated postoperatively. The main outcome measures were Pure tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1, 2, 3 kHz at early and late follow up after stapes surgery were compared and correlated with the subjective benefit on the QoL inventories. The perforation method and the type of surgery were analyzed as potentially influencing factors.


All patients showed a significantly reduced air bone gap (ABG 0.5, 1, 2, 3) at the two follow-up visits (visit 2: mean: 13.6 dB, SD 7.7; visit 3: mean: 12.7 dB SD 8.1) compared to preoperative measurements (mean: 28.9 dB, SD 9.9) and subjectively benefitted from stapes surgery (mean GBI score: 21.55; SD 20.60, mean SPOT-25 score: 28.03; SD 18.53). The outcome of the two questionnaires correlated with each other. Neither the hearing-outcome nor the subjective benefit was significantly influenced by the prosthesis, the perforation method or the type of anesthesia.


Both prostheses were safe and led to comparable hearing results as well as to subjective benefits in the Health-related-Quality-of-Life (HrQoL). A combination of the two questionnaires is recommendable for postoperative quality control.


Stapedotomy Stapes surgery GBI SPOT-25 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ealy M, Smith RJH (2011) Otosclerosis. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 70:122–129. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menger DJ, Tange RA (2003) The aetiology of otosclerosis: a review of the literature. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 28(2):112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asik B, Binar M, Serdar M, Satar B (2016) A meta-analysis of surgical success rates in congenital stapes fixation and juvenile otosclerosis. Laryngoscope. 126(1):191–198. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulman CH (2000) Audit of stapedectomy in the north west of England for 1996 and an analysis of the criteria used to describe success. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 25(6):542–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huber AM, Veraguth D, Schmid S, Roth T, Eiber A (2008) Tight stapes prosthesis fixation leads to better functional results in otosclerosis surgery. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 29(7):893–899. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helms J (1976) Acoustic trauma from the bone cutting burr. J Laryngol Otol. 90(12):1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Causse JB, Causse JR (1982) Minimizing cochlear loss during and after stapedectomy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 15(4):813–835. Accessed June 2 2019.
  8. 8.
    Knox GW, Reitan H (2005) Shape-memory stapes prosthesis for otosclerosis surgery. Laryngoscope. 115(8):1340–1346. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roosli C, Schmid P, Huber AM (2011) Biocompatibility of nitinol stapes prosthesis. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 32(2):265–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zahnert T (2007) Nitinol as a memory-metal for the coupling of stapes prostheses. HNO. 55(3):158–163. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arlinger S (2003) Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss—a review. Int J Audiol. 42(Suppl 2):2S17–2S20Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer SE, Megerian CA (2000) Patients’ perceived outcomes after stapedectomy for otosclerosis. Ear Nose Throat J. 79(11):846–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lundman L, Mendel L, Bagger-Sjoback D, Rosenhall U (1999) Hearing in patients operated unilaterally for otosclerosis. Self-assessment of hearing and audiometric results. Acta Otolaryngol. 119(4):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bachinger D, Roosli C, Kesterke R et al (2019) Distorted sound perception and subjective benefit after stapedotomy—a prospective single-centre study. Int J Audiol. 58(6):333–338. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bächinger D, Röösli C, Ditzen B, Huber AM (2016) Development and validation of the Zurich chronic middle ear inventory (ZCMEI-21): an electronic questionnaire for assessing quality of life in patients with chronic otitis media. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lailach S, Schenke T, Baumann I et al (2017) Development and validation of the stapesplasty outcome test 25 (SPOT-25). HNO. 65(12):973–980. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newman CW, Weinstein BE (1988) The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly as a measure of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 9(2):81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA (1990) The hearing handicap inventory for adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear. 11(6):430–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lailach S, Baumann I, Zahnert T, Neudert M (2018) State of the art of quality-of-life measurement in patients with chronic otitis media and conductive hearing loss. HNO. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lailach S, Zahnert T, Neudert M (2017) Data and reporting quality in tympanoplasty and ossiculoplasty studies. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (United States). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 113(3):186–187.
  23. 23.
    Lailach S, Schenke T, Baumann I et al (2018) Living with otosclerosis: disease-specific health-related quality-of-life measurement in patients undergoing stapes surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 275(1):71–79. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khorsandi AMT, Jalali MM, Shoshi DV (2018) Predictive factors in 995 stapes surgeries for primary otosclerosis. Laryngoscope. 128(10):2403–2407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Du LJ, Gao HG, Tong J, Chen WW, Shan L, Cai XH (2017) Comparative analysis of laser and non-laser stapes surgeries. J Int Adv Otol. 13(1):32–35. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stromback K, Lundman L, Bjorsne A, Grendin J, Stjernquist-Desatnik A, Dahlin-Redfors Y (2017) Stapes surgery in Sweden: evaluation of a national-based register. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 274(6):2421–2427. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laske RD, Roosli C, Chatzimichalis MV, Sim JH, Huber AM (2011) The influence of prosthesis diameter in stapes surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 32(4):520–528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schimanski G, Schimanski E, Berthold MR (2011) Diagnostic findings in stapes revision surgery—a retrospective of 26 years. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 32(3):373–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gerlinger I, Toth M, Lujber L et al (2009) Necrosis of the long process of the incus following stapes surgery: new anatomical observations. Laryngoscope. 119(4):721–726. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Toth M, Moser G, Rosch S, Grabmair G, Rasp G (2013) Anatomic parameters of the long process of incus for stapes surgery. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 34(9):1564–1570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amadei EM, Cola C (2018) Revision stapes surgery after stapedotomy: a retrospective evaluation of 75 cases. Ear Nose Throat J. 97(6):E1–E4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hazenberg AJC, Hoppe FF, Dazert S, Minovi A (2013) Measurement of quality of life following stapes surgery. HNO. 61(3):233–239. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery “Otto Körner”Rostock University Medical CenterRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations