ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2025
Revisions after prior stapes surgery: aspects on indication, intraoperative findings and surgical strategies.
Article in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Determinants of Success in Revision Cochlear Implant Surgeries: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Patient, Surgical, and Radiological Factors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrimary stapes surgery is considered a challenging intervention in ear surgery. Despite an risk of deafness in 0.5-1 percent, this procedure has still a good benefit-risk ratio due to the improvement in hearing and quality of life that is usually achieved. However, revision after prior stapes surgery is considered even more challenging. Revisions after stapes surgery are very heterogeneous procedures, both in terms of the indication and the surgical strategy and are generally considered to be significantly more demanding. Reasons for complications after prior stapes surgery as well as strategies for successful revisions are not well described in the literature.
methodsRetrospective cohort study, tertiary referral center. 124 cases of revisions after prior stapes surgery were identified between 2011-2022 and are analyzed based on biographic data, clinical, audiological, and intraoperative findings as well as the eventual therapy. Cases were analyzed regarding indication, intraoperative finding and the surgical strategy chosen.
resultsAcute, subacute, and long-term complications of the primary intervention as well as other incidental reasons such as progressive hearing loss can be identified as indication for revision surgery. Preoperative clinical findings were correlated to intraoperative findings and surgical strategies. Audiological results are discussed.
conclusionsDifferent recommendations for the indication of a surgical revision can be derived depending on the individual preoperative case history and findings. In addition, there are patterns regarding the chances of success of a revision, especially in cases of persistent conductive hearing loss chances of hearing improvement seem possible in more than 80% of cases.
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.