ArticlePloS one2021
Impact of surgeons' experience and the single-shot perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis on outcome in stapedotomy.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Audiometric changes following oral versus local gel foam steroid administration after stapedectomy in otosclerosis patients: a retrospective comparative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Risk factors leading to the formation of intranasal synechiae (adhesions) in patients who underwent septo- and septoturbinoplasty (a retrospective cohort Study).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Revisions after prior stapes surgery: aspects on indication, intraoperative findings and surgical strategies.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- [Revision surgery after stapedectomy].HNO · 2023Review
- Are there differences in revision stapes surgery outcomes between university and county clinics? A study from the quality register for otosclerosis surgery in Sweden.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether surgeons´ experience and perioperative single-shot antibiotic prophylaxis affect outcome of patients undergoing stapes surgery. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated audiological outcomes and postoperative complications of 538 consecutive patients who underwent stapes surgery at a single tertiary referral center between 1990 and 2017. Effects of different clinical variables, including single-shot antibiotic prophylaxis and surgeons' experience on outcome were assessed.
results538 patients underwent 667 stapedotomies and postoperative complication rate was 7.5% (n = 50). Air conduction and air-bone gap closure improved significantly after surgery (14.2 ± 14.8 dB, p = 0.001; 14.5 ± 12.8 dB, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that 6 years or less of surgical experience was independently associated with a higher incidence of persisting or recurrent conductive hearing loss (p = 0.033, OR 5.13) but perioperative application of antibiotics had no significant effect on outcome.
conclusionFirst, clinical outcome regarding persisting or recurrent conductive hearing loss caused by incus necrosis and prosthesis luxation is linked to surgical performance. This underlines the need for a meticulous training and supervision of less experienced surgeons performing stapes surgery. Second, our results do not support the need for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in stapes surgery. Potential standard limitations of retrospective cohort studies (selection bias, confusion bias etc.) could play a role in interpreting our results. However, the probability for these limitations is minimized due to the large patient sample.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.