Literature DB >> 23010791

Comparison of incus interpositioning technique versus glass ionomer cement application in type 2 tympanoplasty.

Haşmet Yazıcı1, Hakkı Uzunkulaoğlu, Hatice Karadas Emir, Zeynep Kızılkaya, Sedat Doğan, Erdal Samim.   

Abstract

Objective of this study is to compare glass ionomer cement application and incus interpositioning techniques in patients who have chronic otitis media, conductive hearing loss with intact tympanic membrane and who undergo hearing reconstruction of staged surgery using a retrospective chart review in the setting of Ministry of Health Ankara Training and Research Hospital ENT Clinic, Turkey. We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent otological surgery and hearing reconstruction with auto graft incus during 2005-2008 or glass ionomer cement during 2008-2010. Patients who had cholesteatoma, stapes fixation and tympanosclerosis were excluded. Postoperative mean follow-up time of 107 patients was 9.8 months (6-38 months, 83.2 % of them was ≤ 9 months). Postoperative pure tone hearing thresholds, graft status, gain scores and air bone gaps were recorded. Intact graft, dry ear on the operated side and ABG scores less than 20 dB were accepted as surgical success. Preoperative ABG score was 30.6 ± 7.93 dB in glass ionomer (group I) and 33.6 ± 11.99 dB in incus interpositioning (group II). Postoperative ABG scores were 13.6 ± 10.40 and 22.6 ± 12.39 dB, respectively, in group I and II. Success of closure in ABG scores was obtained in both groups (p < 0.001). Gain scores in group I were better (p = 0.035). Graft success (p = 0.020) correlated with gain score. Results showed that the glass ionomer cement application is a good, cost-effective technique, easy to perform and yields better hearing scores and lower complication rates compared to incus interpositioning technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23010791     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-012-2120-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  16 in total

Review 1.  Ossiculoplasty.

Authors:  M McGee; J V Hough
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.346

Review 2.  Middle ear reconstructive techniques.

Authors:  R A Chole; D J Skarada
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.346

3.  Middle-ear reconstruction: a review of 150 cases.

Authors:  Ikramullah Khan; Amir M Jan; Farrukh Shahzad
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.469

4.  Ossiculoplasty using incus interposition: hearing results and analysis of the middle ear risk index.

Authors:  Robert C O'Reilly; Steven P Cass; Barry E Hirsch; Donald B Kamerer; Richard A Bernat; Sherri P Poznanovic
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  How we do it: ionomeric cement to attach the stapes prosthesis to the long process of the incus.

Authors:  J R Tysome; J Harcourt
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.597

6.  Subacute fatal aluminum encephalopathy after reconstructive otoneurosurgery: a case report.

Authors:  E Reusche; P Pilz; G Oberascher; B Lindner; R Egensperger; K Gloeckner; E Trinka; B Iglseder
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 7.  Hearing results in pediatric patients with chronic otitis media after ossicular reconstruction with partial ossicular replacement prostheses and total ossicular replacement prostheses.

Authors:  T P Murphy
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Ossicular reconstruction with titanium prosthesis.

Authors:  Angela D Martin; Stephen G Harner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  Incudostapedial rebridging ossiculoplasty with bone cement.

Authors:  Enver Ozer; Yildirim A Bayazit; Muzaffer Kanlikama; Semih Mumbuc; Zeki Ozen
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  [Some structural characteristics of articulation of the incus and stapes in man].

Authors:  A E Betremeev
Journal:  Vestn Otorinolaringol       Date:  1993 Sep-Dec
View more
  2 in total

1.  Endoscopic transcanal management of incus long process defects: rebridging with bone cement versus incus interposition.

Authors:  Waleed Moneir; Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem; Ahmed Hemdan
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-06-18       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Comparison of Hydroxyapatite Prosthesis and Incus Interposition in Incus Defects.

Authors:  Suphi Bulğurcu; Bünyamin Dikilitaş; İbrahim Çukurova
Journal:  Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-06-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.