Endoscopic malleostapedotomy versus incudostapedotomy for stapes fixation with or without lateral chain fixation: A comparative outcomes study

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This study aims to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes of endoscopic malleostapedotomy (EMS) and endoscopic incudostapedotomy (EIS). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 36 consecutive ears in 33 patients who underwent stapes surgery using either EMS (EMS group) or EIS (EIS group). Operational practicability across surgical steps, postoperative hearing, operation time, switch of approach, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results The EMS and EIS groups comprised seven (19.4%) and 29 ears (80.6%), respectively. The EMS group exhibited a greater proportion of moderate practicability in anchoring site exposure (42.9%, three of seven) and in securing the prosthesis (100%, seven of seven) in comparison to the EIS group, which had 0% (0 out of 29) and 41.4% (12 out of 29), respectively. Postoperative hearing improvements were equivalent between the groups, with EMS achieving a mean air‐bone gap improvement of 28.8 dB and EIS of 23.2 dB. The ABG closure rates within 10 dB and 20 dB for the EMS group were 28.6% and 100%, respectively, and not significantly different from the EIS group (p = .103). However, the average surgical duration for EMS was extended by 77.4 min. The rate of complications was comparable between the groups (EMS 14.3%, EIS 10.3%, p = 1.000). Conclusion The findings indicate that while EMS requires a longer operation time because of decreased practicability in specific surgical steps, it provides comparable outcomes to EIS, underscoring the potential of endoscopic techniques to establish malleostapedotomy as a surgical option as it is with traditional incudostapedotomy. Level of Evidence 4.

Keywords

• congenital middle ear anomaly
• endoscopic stapes surgery
• incudostapedotomy
• malleostapedotomy
• otosclerosis