Ossiculoplasty using Autologous Reshaped Incus and Teflon PORP: A Comparative Study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction
Autologous reshaped Incus and Teflon partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP) are commonly used for ossicular chain reconstruction. The present study attempts to assess the post-operative outcome with these two prostheses.
Materials and Methods
A Randomized prospective study was conducted in Tertiary referral care hospital to determine which material, among autologous reshaped Incus and Teflon partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP) gives better postoperative hearing result in Ossiculoplasty.
Patients presenting at outpatients’ department with the clinical diagnosis of chronic otitis media with perforation or retraction. The study population consisted of a total of 50 patients. Ossiculoplasty with reshaped Incus or PORP was performed after Canal Wall Up mastoidectomy. Hearing results were measured by Air-Bone gap in PTA after 6 months of surgery.
Results
Selecting the criteria <20 dB ABG as success when Stapes superstructure is present, Incus has 64.29% success rate, whereas PORP has 31.81% success. Extrusion rate of different prosthesis shows PORP has 18.18% extrusion whereas autologous Incus has lower (7.14%) extrusion rate.
Conclusion
Among these two ossiculoplasty materials, autologous Incus gives better postoperative hearing gain and lower extrusion rate.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Kartush JM. Ossicular chain reconstruction, Capitulum to malleus, Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1994; 27:689-715
Lubbe D, Fagan JJ. Revisiting the risks involved in using homograft ossicles in otological surgery. J Laryngol Otol. 2008;122:111-5
Glasscock ME 3 rd , Jackson CG, Knox GW. Can acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease be transmitted via otologic homografts? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1988;114:1252-5
Toner JC, Smyth GD, Kerr AG. Realities in ossiculoplasty. J Laryngol Otol. 1991; 105:529-33
Black B. Ossiculoplasty prognosis: The spite method of assessment. Am J Otol. 1992;13:544-51
Albu S, Babighian G, Trabalzini F. Prognostic factors in tympanoplasty. Am J Otol. 1998;19:136-40
O'Reilly RC, Cass SP, Hirsch BE, Kamerer DB, Bernat RA, Poznanovic SP. Ossiculoplasty using incus interposition: Hearing results and analysis of the middle ear risk index. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26:853-8
Athanasiadis-Sismanis A, Poe DS. Ossicular chain reconstruction. In: Gulya AJ, Minor LB, Poe DS Eds, Glasscock-Shambaugh Surgary of the Ear, 6 th ed. Ch. 29. USA: People's Medical Publishing House, 2010: p489-500
Jha S, Mehta K, Prajapati V, Patel D, Kharadi P. A comparative study of ossiculoplasty by using various graft materials. NJIRM 2011; 2:53-7
Amith I, Naragund RS Mudhol, Harugop AS, Patil PH. Ossiculoplasty with autologous incus vs prosthesis: A comparison of anatomical and functional results. Indian Journal of Otology 2011;17:75-9
Gardner EK, Jackson CG, Kaylie DM. Results with titanium ossicular reconstruction prostheses. Laryngoscope 2004;114:65-70
Meister H, Walger M, Mickenhagen A, von Wedel H, Stennert E. Standardized measurements of the sound transmission of middle ear implants using a mechanical middle ear model. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1999; 256:122-7
Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ, Blayney AW. The effect of prosthesis design on vibration of the reconstructed ossicular chain: A comparative finite element analysis of four prostheses, Otol Neurotol. 2003; 24:11-9
Zenner HP, Stegmaier A, Lehner R, Baumann I, Zimmermann R. Open Tübingen titanium prostheses for ossiculoplasty: A prospective clinical trial. Otol Neurotol. 2001; 22:582-9.