1999
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.1999.536
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Congenital Absence of Oval Window

Abstract: Oval window agenesis with obvious craniofacial ear deformity is a rarely diagnosed condition. This finding is noticeable nowadays as a result of the development of microsurgery of the ear. The vestibule is the central chamber of the bony labyrinth of the inner ear. It has a lateral opening at the medial wall of the middle ear, which is called the oval window (fenestra ovale), and lies above and slightly behind the promontory, and below the horizontal portion of the facial nerve. It is closed in life by the foo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 1 summarizes the reports of several authors on various methods for hearing improvement ranging from the most conservative approach such as conventional hearing aids to more invasive approaches such as malleostapedotomy or incudostapedotomy following oval window drill out or platinotomy or vestibulotomy and shows the studies where details on the laterality as well as the surgical technique utilized. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] A variety of prosthesis such as a Teflon piston, and a cartilage columella have been used. 6 Thomeer's report published in 2012 provided a summary of 70 cases in several series from 1950-2010 mostly comprising Class 1-3, with the largest series of 144 cases reported from Nijmegen by Cremers and colleagues while only ten percent (14 patients from 1986-2001) of cases were of the rarest class 4a type anomaly.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Table 1 summarizes the reports of several authors on various methods for hearing improvement ranging from the most conservative approach such as conventional hearing aids to more invasive approaches such as malleostapedotomy or incudostapedotomy following oval window drill out or platinotomy or vestibulotomy and shows the studies where details on the laterality as well as the surgical technique utilized. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] A variety of prosthesis such as a Teflon piston, and a cartilage columella have been used. 6 Thomeer's report published in 2012 provided a summary of 70 cases in several series from 1950-2010 mostly comprising Class 1-3, with the largest series of 144 cases reported from Nijmegen by Cremers and colleagues while only ten percent (14 patients from 1986-2001) of cases were of the rarest class 4a type anomaly.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 Given this, Conventional prosthesis was chosen Case 1 malleostapedotomy via endaural approach on second surgery, facial nerve rolled, 0.6-mm window drilled using 0.4-mm Skeeter drill, piston wire prosthesis bent 20°, modified to 7-mm length and fixed on normal malleus Case 2 stapedotomy after "facial roll" and 0.6-mm window using 0.4-mm Skeeter drill, piston wire 7-mm-long used, transient House-Brackmann Grade III recovered by 1 month Case 1 Vestibulotomy using a pick then teflon prosthesis Case 2 tragal cartilage, incus long process with bone cement as complex at footplate, postoperative hearing gain 42 dB and air conducting hearing level 20 dB on right side Transcanal approach for exploratory tympanotomy and malleostapedotomy, hearing improved but deteriorated in long term Inner ear fenestration in 3 followed by piston; exploratory tympanotomy only in 1; hearing improved in all cases after surgery and to within 25 db in two and within 45 db in one both conventional hearing aids and passive or active bone conduction devices remain viable options, especially in bilateral cases. 7,13 Long term hearing improvement has been notable in these novel active bone conduction devices in recent reports. 12 For unilateral cases, no consensus has been reached but recent literature points to a more aggressive approach that involves surgically correcting the unilateral loss for better hearing in noise and sound localization.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%