Comparison of Titanium vs. Polycel Total Ossicular Replacement Prosthesis | ||
| Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 28، شماره 2، خرداد 2016، صفحه 89-97 اصل مقاله (544.8 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/ijorl.2016.6532 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad Faramarzi1؛ Reza Jahangiri2؛ Sareh Roosta* 1 | ||
| 1Otorhinolaryngology Research Centre, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. | ||
| 2Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Introduction: Even though modern technology progresses so rapidly, annals of otology are replete with so many challenging article, which often compare various types of prosthesis. Since there has not been a prospective randomized clinical trial study which compares the hearing result of total ossicular replacement prosthesis made of Titanium with omega connector and Polycel in the literature, we decided to perform a study encompassing this issue. Materials and Methods: 105 patients, who were in the 2nd stage of their operation and who needed total ossicular replacement prosthesis, were included in this prospective single blind randomized clinical trial study. Patients were classified in two groups: titanium Kurz (TTP™ -Vario system, Kurz GmbH, Dusslingen, Germany) with omega connector and Polycel (Sheehy Plastipore Polycel, Medtronic Xomed Inc). The duration of the follow up was 6-12 months. In order to evaluate hearing results, pure tone audiometric in 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz were checked. In addition, speech reception threshold was recorded. A successful surgery was defined as having a postoperative air–bone gap within 20 dB. Results: We accomplished successful hearing in 64.4% of patients with titanium and 65% of patients with a Polycel prosthesis.Improvement in speech reception threshold was 11.5 dB in the titanium group and 13 dB in the Polycel group. In other words, there was no significant difference between the two groups. In addition, air-bone gap improvement after ossiculoplasty was 11.2 dB in the patients with a titanium prosthesis and 12.4 dB in the Polycel group. In fact, the difference was not significant. Conclusion: We found that both the titanium and the Polycel prosthesis improve speech reception threshold and air-bone gap closure in a similar manner. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Chronic otitis media؛ Ossicular reconstruction؛ Total ossicular replacement prosthesis؛ Titanium؛ Polycel | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1.Nason R, Jung JY, Chole RA. Lipopolysaccharide-induced osteoclastogenesis from mononuclear precursors: a mechanism for osteolysis in chronic otitis. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology: JARO. 2009;10(2):151-60.
2.Albera R, Canale A, Piumetto E, Lacilla M, Dagna F. Ossicular chain lesions in cholesteatoma. Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica: organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale. 2012;32(5):309-13.
3.Mostafa BE, Fiky LE, Hassan O. Functional results in ossiculoplasty with different titanium prostheses. Egyptian Journal of Ear, Nose, Throat and Allied Sciences. 2013;14(2):79-84.
4.Kim HH, Wiet RJ. Preferred technique in ossiculoplasty. Operative Techniques in Otolaryn- gology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2003;14(4):243-6.
5.Shea J. Plastipore total ossicular replacement prosthesis. The Laryngoscope. 1976;86(2):239-40.
6.Michael P, Fong J, Raut V. Kurz titanium prostheses in paediatric ossiculoplasty--short term results. International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. 2008;72(9):1329-33.
7.Roth JA, Pandit SR, Soma M, Kertesz TR. Ossicular chain reconstruction with a titanium prosthesis. The Journal of laryngology and otology. 2009;123(10):1082-6.
8.Stupp CH, Stupp HF, Grun D. [Replacement of ear ossicles with titanium prostheses]. Laryngo- rhino- otologie. 1996;75(6):335-7.
9.Mantei T, Chatzimichalis M, Sim JH, Schrepfer T, Vorburger M, Huber AM. Ossiculoplasty with total ossicular replacement prosthesis and Omega Connector: early clinical results and functional measurements. Otology & neurotology. 2011;32(7):1102-7.
10.Alaani A, Raut VV. Kurz titanium prosthesis ossiculoplasty--follow-up statistical analysis of factors affecting one year hearing results. Auris, nasus, larynx. 2010;37(2):150-4.
11.Mardassi A, Deveze A, Sanjuan M, Mancini J, Parikh B, Elbedeiwy A, et al. Titanium ossicular chain replacement prostheses: prognostic factors and preliminary functional results. European annals of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck diseases. 2011;128(2):53-8.
12.Martin AD, Harner SG. Ossicular reconstruction with titanium prosthesis. The Laryngoscope. 2004;114(1):61-4.
13.Kim HC YM, Kang HS, Ahn JH, Chung JW. Factors Influencing Hearing Outcomes after Ossiculoplasty Using Polycell® Prosthesis in Patients with Chronic Otitis Media. Korean J Audiol. 2010;14:88-93.
14.Berenholz LP, Burkey JM, Lippy WH. Short- and long-term results of ossicular reconstruction using partial and total plastipore prostheses. Otology & neurotology. 2013;34(5):884-9.
15.Huttenbrink KB, Luers JC, Beutner D. Titanium angular clip: a new prosthesis for reconstruction of the long process of the incus. Otology & neurotology. 2009;30(8):1186-90.
16.Neudert M, Zahnert T, Lasurashvili N, Bornitz M, Lavcheva Z, Offergeld C. Partial ossicular reconstruction: comparison of three different prostheses in clinical and experimental studies. Otology & neurotology. 2009;30(3):332-8.
17.Eleftheriadou A, Chalastras T, Georgopoulos S, Yiotakis J, Manolopoulos L, Iliadis I, et al. Long-term results of plastipore prostheses in reconstruction of the middle ear ossicular chain. ORL. 2009;71(5):284-8.
18.Coffey CS, Lee FS, Lambert PR. Titanium versus nontitanium prostheses in ossiculoplasty. The Laryngoscope. 2008;118(9):1650-8.
19.Redaelli de Zinis LO. Titanium vs hydroxyapatite ossiculoplasty in canal wall down mastoidectomy. Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery. 2008;134(12):1283-7.
20.Truy E, Naiman AN, Pavillon C, Abedipour D, Lina-Granade G, Rabilloud M. Hydroxyapatite versus titanium ossiculoplasty. Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology. 2007;28(4):492-8.
21.Schmerber S, Troussier J, Dumas G, Lavieille JP, Nguyen DQ. Hearing results with the titanium ossicular replacement prostheses. European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology. 2006;263(4):347-54.
22.Yung M, Smith P. Titanium versus nontitanium ossicular prostheses-a randomized controlled study of the medium-term outcome. Otology & neurotology. 2010;31(5):752-8.
23.Siddiq MA, Raut VV. Early results of titanium ossiculoplasty using the Kurz titanium prosthesis--a UK perspective. The Journal of laryngology and otology. 2007;121(6):539-44.
24.Jackson CG, Glasscock ME, 3rd, Schwaber MK, Nissen AJ, Christiansen SG, Smith PG. Ossicular chain reconstruction: the TORP and PORP in chronic ear disease. The Laryngoscope. 1983;93(8):981-8.
25.Brackmann DE. Tympanoplasty with mastoidectomy: canal wall up procedures. The American journal of otology. 1993;14(4):380-2.
26.Colletti V, Fiorino FG, Sittoni V. Minisculptured ossicle grafts versus implants: long-term results. The American journal of otology. 1987;8(6):553-9.
27.Krueger WW, Feghali JG, Shelton C, Green JD, Beatty CW, Wilson DF, et al. Preliminary ossiculoplasty results using the Kurz titanium pro- stheses. Otology & neurotology.2002;23(6):836-9.
28.Begall K, Zimmermann H. Reconstruction of the ossicular chain with titanium implants. Results of a multicenter study. Laryngorhinootologie. 2000;79(3):139-45.
29.Murugasu E, Puria S, Roberson JB, Jr. Malleus-to-footplate versus malleus-to-stapes-head ossicular reconstruction prostheses: temporal bone pressure gain measurements and clinical audiological data. Otology & neurotology. 2005;26(4):572-82.
30.Vincent R, Rovers M, Mistry N, Oates J, Sperling N, Grolman W. Ossiculoplasty in intact stapes and malleus patients: a comparison of PORPs versus TORPs with malleus relocation and Silastic banding techniques. Otology & neurotology. 2011;32(4): 616-25. 31.Berenholz LP, Rizer FM, Burkey JM, Schuring AG, Lippy WH. Ossiculoplasty in canal wall down mastoidectomy.Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. 2000;123(1 Pt 1):30-3.
32.Quesnel S, Teissier N, Viala P, Couloigner V, Van Den Abbeele T. Long term results of ossiculoplasties with partial and total titanium Vario Kurz prostheses in children. International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. 2010;74(11):1226-9.
33.Moretz WH, Jr. Ossiculoplasty with an intact stapes: superstructure versus footplate prosthesis placement. The Laryngoscope. 1998;108(11 Pt 2 Suppl 89):1-12.
34.Woods O, Fata FE, Saliba I. Ossicular reconstruction: incus versus universal titanium prosthesis. Auris, nasus, larynx. 2009;36(4):387-92.
35.Jaryszak EM, Sampson EM, Antonelli PJ. Biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on ossicular reconstruction prostheses. American journal of otolaryngology. 2009;30(6):367-70.
36.Wiet RJ, Wiet RM. Experience-driven ossiculoplasty. Operative Techniques in Otolaryn- gology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2010;21(3):211-6.
37.Mishiro Y, Sakagami M, Adachi O, Kakutani C. Prognostic factors for short-term outcomes after ossiculoplasty using multivariate analysis with logistic regression. Archives of otolaryngology-head & neck surgery. 2009;135(8):738-41.
38.Shinohara T, Gyo K, Saiki T, Yanagihara N. Ossiculoplasty using hydroxyapatite prostheses: long-term results. Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences. 2000;25(4):287-92.
39.Brenski AC, Isaacson B. Reconstruction of the ossicular chain in children. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2009;20(3):187-96.
40.Pyle GM. Ossicular sculpting for conductive hearing loss. Operative Techniques in Otolaryn- gology-Head and Neck Surgery.2003;14(4):237-42.
41.Charlett SD, Scott AR, Richardson H, Hawthorne MR, Banerjee A. Audiometric outcomes of tympanoplasty with hydroxylapatite prosthesis: consultant versus trainees. Otology & neurotology. 2007;28(5):678-81. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,150 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,222 |
||