Analysis of hearing improvement by various ossiculoplasty materials (autologous versus prostheses) in chronic otitis media patients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20223379Keywords:
Total ossicular replacement prosthesis, Partial ossicular replacement prosthesis, Ossiculoplasty, Otitis media, TympanomastoidectomyAbstract
Background: The main purpose of surgery in cases of chronic otitis media is to eradicate the infection and restore the middle ear hearing function. Both intact tympanic membrane and ossicular chain are essential for the restoration of hearing in these cases. The world of material science has provided otologists with array of biomaterials for middle ear reconstruction. The use of ossicular graft material in ossicular chain reconstruction has significantly improved hearing results after surgeries for chronic otitis media.
Methods: The study involved a total of 50 patients presenting with dry tympanic membrane perforation with ossicular disruption and air-bone gap (ABG) of >25 from July 2014 to December 2019. The patients were randomly allotted into two groups and they underwent tympanomastoidectomy with ossiculoplasty, in one group homologous incus was used as ossiculoplasty material and in the second group Teflon TORP/PORP was used as ossiculoplasty material.
Results: The present study concluded that there was no inter-group difference in post-operative hearing outcome however the two groups individually noted significant post-operative improvement in hearing.
Conclusions: In present study postoperative hearing improvement was similar in both groups. Although numerous approaches to ossicular reconstruction have been proven to be successful, no single technique has received universal acceptance.
References
Todberg T, Koch A, Andersson M, Olsen SF, Lous J, Homøe P. Incidence of otitis media in a contemporary Danish national birth COHORT. PLoS One. 2014;9:111732.
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.
Chavan SS, Jain PV, Vedi JN, Rai DK, Kadri H. Ossiculoplasty: a prospective study of 80 cases. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;26:143-50.
Mudhol RS, Naragund AI, Shruthi VS. Ossiculoplasty: revisited. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgery. 2013;65(3):451-4.
Goldenberg R, Emmet JR. Current use of implants in middle ear surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22(2):145-52.
Samy RN, Pensak ML. Revision ossiculoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2006;39(4):699-712.
Moon IS, Song MH, Kim HN, Chung MH, Lee WS, Lee HK. Hearing results after ossiculoplasty using Polycel prosthesis. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127:20-4.
Ban JH, Lee NH, Jin SM. Results of ossiculoplasty with Kurz titanium prosthesis. Korean J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;50:404-10.
Vos C, Gersdorff M, Gerard JM. Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2007;28:61-7.
Austin OF. Ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1972;5:145-160.
Lamba GK, Sohal BS, Goyal JP. Ossiculoplasty: a prospective study on 50 patients using various graft materials. Ind J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;71(2):1140-6.
Pennington CL. Incus Interposition a 15 year report. Ann Otol Renol Laryngol. 1983;92:568-70.
AlQudah M, Dawes P. How we do it: modified Wehrs incus ossiculoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005;30(5):461-4.
