Literature DB >> 11300260

Current use of implants in middle ear surgery.

R A Goldenberg1, J R Emmet.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors report the results of a survey of members of the American Otological Society (AOS) and the American Neurotology Society (ANS) regarding their use of prostheses currently available for ossiculoplasty and stapedectomy. These findings are compared with a similar study presented by one of the authors in 1989.
METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to the entire membership of the AOS and ANS with questions regarding biomaterial and prosthesis usage for stapes and chronic ear surgery, as well as satisfaction with each type of prosthesis used. Of the 575 questionnaires mailed, 274 (47%) were returned. Only 248 of the respondents performed middle ear surgery (43%), and their responses constitute the database for this study.
RESULTS: For those respondents performing stapes surgery in both 1989 and 1999, the mean number of cases per year has increased from 32 to 37 (p < or = 0.004). The mean number of chronic ear cases has also increased from 95 in 1989 to 110 in 1999 (p < or = 0.001). As a biomaterial, hydroxyapatite prostheses are used by most surgeons (82%), followed by autograft and homograft bone (72%), autograft and homograft cartilage (62%), and Plastipore (59%). (Although 62% of respondents use cartilage, only 4.4% ranked it first in preference.) In 1989, bone was used most (93%), followed by cartilage (78%) and Plastipore (81%). Hydroxyapatite, which had just been introduced as a biomaterial, was used by only 9% of respondents. For stapes prostheses in 1999, the majority of respondents used stainless steel/platinum (71%), bucket handle (69%), or partial fluoroplastic (56%) prostheses. There was a high overall satisfaction rate in the use of most of these prostheses (> 85%), with several exceptions. The lowest satisfaction rate was 71% for Plastipore partial ossicular replacement prosthesis and total ossicular replacement prosthesis. Usage and satisfaction rates are presented for specific types of implants and compared with the earlier survey findings.
CONCLUSION: The current use of implants in middle ear surgery demonstrates a specific pattern with a high degree of user satisfaction. The preference for implants by respondents has remained stable over the past 10 years; there has been a decrease in the percentage of use of bone, cartilage, and Plastipore with a corresponding increase in the use of hydroxyapatite.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11300260     DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200103000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  11 in total

1.  Reconstructive methods in hearing disorders - surgical methods.

Authors:  Thomas Zahnert
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-09-28

2.  Short-term results using Kurz titanium ossicular implants.

Authors:  Flemming S Vassbotn; Per Møller; Juha Silvola
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2006-11-03       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Hearing results with the titanium ossicular replacement prostheses.

Authors:  Sébastien Schmerber; Joelle Troussier; Georges Dumas; Jean-Pierre Lavieille; Dinh-qui Nguyen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2005-12-03       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Histopathology of ossicular grafts and implants in chronic otitis media.

Authors:  Fayez Bahmad; Saumil N Merchant
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.547

5.  The effects of surgery type and different ossiculoplasty materials on the hearing results in cholesteatoma surgery.

Authors:  Sultan Şevik Eliçora; Duygu Erdem; Aykut Erdem Dinç; Murat Damar; Sultan Bişkin
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  First results of a novel adjustable-length ossicular reconstruction prosthesis in temporal bones.

Authors:  Peter K Gottlieb; Xiping Li; Ashkan Monfared; Nikolas Blevins; Sunil Puria
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  The efficiency of titanium middle ear prosthesis in ossicular chain reconstruction: our experience.

Authors:  Kshitij Dhaval Shah; Renuka A Bradoo; Anagha A Joshi; Deepti D Sapkale
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-12-03

8.  Passive and active middle ear implants.

Authors:  Dirk Beutner; Karl-Bernd Hüttenbrink
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-03-10

9.  Titanium versus Hydroxyapatite Prostheses: Comparison of Hearing and Anatomical Outcomes after Ossicular Chain Reconstruction.

Authors:  Emre Ocak; Süha Beton; Cem Meço; Gürsel Dursun
Journal:  Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-03-01

10.  Total ossiculoplasty: advantages of two-point stabilization technique.

Authors:  Leonard Berenholz; John Burkey; William Lippy
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-08-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.