Reporting results in ossiculoplasty.
OBJECTIVE
To review and modify past methods of reporting ossiculoplasty results, improve analysis, standardize presentation formats, and achieve greater veracity of the reported outcomes.


METHODS
A review of past and present evaluation methods.


BACKGROUND
Past ossiculoplasty evaluation methods have been often poorly comparable, based on questionable methodology, and frequently failed to adequately verify the results described. Guidelines set by the American Academy in 1995 to improve matters appear unsatisfactory in several respects.


METHODS
Past evaluation techniques and the Academy modifications are examined for areas that may be subject to modification and improvement, particularly the choice of audiologic frequencies, the calculation of the air-bone gap, and the description of the pathologic findings within the caseload itself.


RESULTS
Some audiologic measures and disease evaluations are potentially inaccurate or inadequate. The Academy frequency selections may be flawed. Insufficient emphasis is given to the evaluation of case pathologic findings, which is the major factor pertinent in series comparisons and preoperative case prognostication.


CONCLUSIONS
Further in-depth analysis of reporting methods is overdue. The matter is one of an international measure standard and should be subject to a global discussion, written and oral, to produce an adequately researched and formulated consensus. This in turn may provide the clinical and theoretical tools by which this troubled area can be more effectively analyzed.
Black
Bruce
B
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. bruceblackmd@bigpond.com.au
D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D004427:Ear Diseases / Q000601:surgery*; D004429:Ear Ossicles / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D010036:Otolaryngology / Q000379:methods*; D013506:Otologic Surgical Procedures; D011184:Postoperative Period; D011379:Prognosis; D011643:Publishing; D012955:Societies, Medical