Literature DB >> 31750170

Comparison of Ossiculoplasty Using Autograft Ossicle Versus Allograft (Teflon).

Anupriya Hajela1, Sunil Kumar2, H P Singh2, Veerendra Verma2.   

Abstract

Chronic suppurative otitis media in almost any form can disrupt the integrity of ossicular chain. Various materials have been used for ossicular substitution or reconstruction, including both biologic and alloplastic materials. Teflon piston is now the most widely used prosthesis for reconstruction of the ossicular chain in cases of otosclerosis. The oto-surgeons are still confronted with problems of ossicular reconstruction regarding the surgical procedure to be done, type of graft to be selected especially in low and poor socioeconomic population. Thus, there is a need felt to comprehensively and holistically evaluate the outcome of ossiculoplasty using Autograft ossicle versus Allograft ossicle (Teflon). Total 64 patients of chronic suppurative otitis media with no active ear infection and air-bone-gap of more than 15 dB were admitted for surgery and divided into two groups according to material used for ossiculoplasty as group A (Autograft) and group B (Allograft). Patients were evaluated at 3 and 6 months post-operatively using audiogram. In both Group A and B, the average pre-operative AC was 40.62 dB (SD 9.65) and 39.37 (SD 10.53) respectively. In 3 months there was a change of 8.83% from 40.62 dB to 37.03 dB in Group-A (p < 0.109, not statistically significant) and 13.10% change from 39.37 dB to 34.21 dB in Group-B (p < 0.049, statistically significant) whereas at 6 months, air conduction improved by 14.22% in Group-A (p < 0.01, statistically significant) and by 21.81% in Group-B (p < 0.001, highly statistically significant). Post-operatively at 3 months, improved AB gap was 62.5% in Group-A and 68.75% in Group-B patients. Post-operative AB gap at 6 months, improvement was seen in 78.12% in Group-A while it was 81.25% in Group-B patients. Alloplastic Teflon ossicle appears to be a good alternative for ossicular reconstruction where autologous incus is not available or disease precludes its use. © Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alloplastic Teflon; Chronic suppurative otitis media; Ossiculoplasty

Year:  2018        PMID: 31750170      PMCID: PMC6841807          DOI: 10.1007/s12070-018-1369-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 2231-3796


  7 in total

1.  Extrusion rates and hearing results in ossicular reconstruction.

Authors:  J W House; K B Teufert
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Ossicular chain reconstruction: titanium versus plastipore.

Authors:  Todd A Hillman; Clough Shelton
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  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

4.  Hearing results of ossiculoplasty in Austin-Kartush group A patients.

Authors:  S Iurato; G Marioni; M Onofri
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Late results of tympanoplasty using ossicle or cortical bone.

Authors:  K Ojala; M Sorri; J Vainio-Mattila; P Sipilä
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 1.469

6.  Partial ossicular reconstruction: comparison of three different prostheses in clinical and experimental studies.

Authors:  Marcus Neudert; Thomas Zahnert; Nikoloz Lasurashvili; Matthias Bornitz; Zlatina Lavcheva; Christian Offergeld
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Ossiculoplasty with intact stapes: analysis of hearing results according to the middle ear risk index.

Authors:  Hatice Emir; Zeynep Kizilkaya Kaptan; Hakan Göcmen; Hakki Uzunkulaoglu; Arzu Tuzuner; Unal Bayiz; Erdal Samim
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.494

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.