Literature DB >> 35716182

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

Waleed Moneir1, Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem1, Ahmed Hemdan2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: to compare hearing outcomes between endoscopic transcanal rebridging with bone cement and endoscopic transcanal incus interposition in patients with incus long process defects secondary to chronic suppurative otitis media (inactive mucosal type).
METHODS: This retrospective study was performed on 83 ears of 83 consecutive patients with incus long process defects secondary to chronic suppurative otitis media (inactive mucosal type). According to the extent of incus long process erosion and subsequent ossiculoplasty technique, patients were divided into 2 groups. Patients in group 1 had erosion involving up to two thirds of the length of the incus long process and underwent endoscopic transcanal rebridging with bone cement. Patients in group 2 had erosion involving more than two thirds of the length of the incus long process and underwent endoscopic transcanal incus interposition.
RESULTS: Hearing gain (mean ± standard deviation) was 21.39 ± 2.15 dB in group 1 and 19.71 ± 6.12 dB in group 2. A significantly greater hearing gain was achieved in bone cement group than in incus interposition group (P value < 0.001). Successful hearing outcome (post-operative air bone gap closure within 20 dB) was achieved in 81.6% and 71.1% of patients of group 1 and group 2 respectively.
CONCLUSION: Endoscopic transcanal rebridging with bone cement offers greater hearing gain than endoscopic transcanal incus interposition. The two techniques remain reliable and cost-effective techniques in management of patients with incus long process defects. The main limitation of this study was the short follow-up period. Further studies with relatively long-term follow-up are strongly recommended.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic suppurative otitis media; Endoscopic transcanal ossiculoplasty; Glass ionomer bone cement; Incus interposition

Year:  2022        PMID: 35716182     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07489-2

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


  28 in total

1.  Ossicular reconstruction: hydroxyapatite bone cement versus incus remodelling: how to manage incudostapedial discontinuity.

Authors:  Thomas Somers; Vincent Van Rompaey; Gerd Claes; Liesbeth Salembier; Joost van Dinther; Zarowski Andrzej; Erwin Offeciers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Management of incus long process defects: incus interposition versus incudostapedial rebridging with bone cement.

Authors:  F Celenk; T Baglam; E Baysal; C Durucu; Z A Karatas; S Mumbuc; M Kanlikama
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 1.469

3.  Ionomer cement for reconstruction of the long process of the incus: the Pécs experience.

Authors:  G Ráth; M Bauer; J Pytel; I Vóna; I Szanyi; L Lujber; I Gerlinger
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.597

4.  Comparison of glass ionomer cement and incus interposition in reconstruction of incus long process defects.

Authors:  Huseyin Dere; Fatih Ozdogan; K Murat Ozcan; Adin Selcuk; Ibrahim Ozcan; Gokhan Gokturk
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials.

Authors:  Richard K Gurgel; Robert K Jackler; Robert A Dobie; Gerald R Popelka
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 3.497

Review 6.  Systematic review of the use of bone cement in ossicular chain reconstruction and revision stapes surgery.

Authors:  Inge Wegner; Jelle W G van den Berg; Adriana L Smit; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Management of Incus Defects in Children: Comparison of Incus Transposition Versus Glass Ionomer Cement.

Authors:  Ismail Guler; Rauf Oguzhan Kum
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 1.697

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

Authors:  Haşmet Yazıcı; Hakkı Uzunkulaoğlu; Hatice Karadas Emir; Zeynep Kızılkaya; Sedat Doğan; Erdal Samim
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-08-04       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Long-term hearing results of incus transposition.

Authors:  M A Siddiq; D M East
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci       Date:  2004-04

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.