Comparison of Titanium versus Polycel as Partial Ossicular Replacement Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Document Type : Original

Authors

1 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Shiraz University of Medical sciences, Shiraz, Iran. Otolaryngology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

2 Otolaryngology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

3 Otolaryngology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction:
Each type of prosthesis for ossiculoplasty has its advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of the best material has been a matter of various studies. The present study aimed to make a comparison between the hearing outcomes of partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP) using titanium versus Polycel prosthesis.
 
Material and Methods:
A total of 106 patients undergoing PORP as a second stage ossiculoplasty were analyzed in this study. Following that, they were randomly assigned to two groups of titanium (n=54) and Polycel (n=52) prosthesis. Subsequently, pre-and post-operative audiometric data were assessed based on the aim of the study.
 
Results:
In general, the post-operative air-bone gap within 20 dB was given to 63.5% and 55.6% of all ears in the Polycel and titanium groups, respectively, indicating a non-significant difference (P=0.407). Finally, no SNHL was observed in the groups.
 
Conclusion:
Overall, the hearing outcomes and the success rate of PORP are comparable between titanium and Polycel prostheses. Therefore, the selection of these prostheses could be based on the surgeons’ preferences, availability, and cost.

Keywords

References

1.             Deklerck AN, Acke FR, Janssens S, De Leenheer EMR. Etiological approach in patients with unidentified hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Feb;79(2):216–22.
2.             Dougherty W, Kesser BW. Management of Conductive Hearing Loss in Children. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2015 Dec;48(6):955–74.
3.             Cox MD, Trinidade A, Russell JS, Dornhoffer JL. Long-Term Hearing Results After Ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol  Off Publ Am Otol Soc  Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2017 Apr;38(4):510–5.
4.             Page JC, Cox MD, King D, Allsopp T, Dornhoffer JL. Long-term Outcomes of Ossiculoplasty With and Without an Intact Malleus. Otol Neurotol  Off Publ Am Otol Soc  Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2019 Jan;40(1):73–8.
5.             Birk S, Brase C, Hornung J. Experience with the use of a partial ossicular replacement prosthesis with a  ball-and-socket joint between the plate and the shaft. Otol Neurotol  Off Publ Am Otol Soc  Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2014 Aug;35(7):1248–50.
6.             Ahn J, Ryu G, Kang M, Cho Y-S. Long-term Hearing Outcome of Canaloplasty With Partial Ossicular Replacement in  Congenital Aural Atresia. Otol Neurotol  Off Publ Am Otol Soc  Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2018 Jun;39(5):602–8.
7. Faramarzi M, Roosta S, Dianat M. Outcome of Incus Interposition after Preservation in Soft Tissue. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Mar;29(91):83–8.
8.             Kong JS, Jeong CY, Shim MJ, Kim WJ, Yeo SW, Park SN. Comparative study of new autologous material, bone-cartilage composite graft, for  ossiculoplasty with Polycel(®) and Titanium. Clin Otolaryngol  Off J ENT-UK ; Off J  Netherlands Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Cerv-fac Surg. 2018 Apr;43(2):434–9.
9.             Kumar S, Yadav K, Ojha T, Sharma A, Singhal A, Gakhar S. To Evaluate and Compare the Result of Ossiculoplasty Using Different Types of Graft Materials and Prosthesis in Cases of Ossicular Discontinuity in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media Cases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Mar; 70(1):15–21.
10.        Sevik Elicora S, Erdem D, Dinc AE, Damar M, Biskin S. The effects of surgery type and different ossiculoplasty materials on the hearing results in cholesteatoma surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Feb;274(2):773–80.
11.          Amith N, Rs M. Autologous incus versus titanium partial ossicular replacement prosthesis in  reconstruction of Austin type A ossicular defects: a prospective randomised clinical trial. J Laryngol Otol. 2017 May;131(5):391–8.
12.          Mulazimoglu S, Saxby A, Schlegel C, Linder T. Titanium incus interposition ossiculoplasty: audiological outcomes and extrusion  rates. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Sep;274(9):3303–10.
13.          O’Connell BP, Rizk HG, Hutchinson T, Nguyen SA, Lambert PR. Long-term Outcomes of Titanium Ossiculoplasty in Chronic Otitis Media. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Jun;154(6):1084–92.
14.          Moon IS, Song MH, Kim H-N, Chung M-H, Lee W-S, Lee H-K. Hearing results after ossiculoplasty using Polycel prosthesis. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007 Jan; 127(1):20–4.
15.          Órfão T, Júlio S, Ramos JF, Dias CC, Silveira H, Santos M. Audiometric Outcome Comparison between Titanium Prosthesis and Molded Autologous  Material. Otolaryngol neck Surg  Off J Am Acad  Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2014 Aug; 151(2): 315–20.
16.          Berenholz LP, Burkey JM, Lippy WH. Short- and long-term results of ossicular reconstruction using partial and total  plastipore prostheses. Otol Neurotol  Off Publ Am Otol Soc  Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2013 Jul;34(5):
884-9.
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 [Internet]. 2009;71(5):284–8. Available from: https://www.karger.com/DOI/10.1159/000253487
18.          Faramarzi M, Jahangiri R,  Roosta S. Comparison of Titanium vs. Polycel Total Ossicular
Replacement Prosthesis. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Mar;28(85):89–97.
19.          Coffey CS, Lee F-S, Lambert PR. Titanium versus Nontitanium Prostheses in Ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope [Internet]. 2008 Sep 1;118(9):1650–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1097/MLG. 0b013e31817bd807
20.          Gelfand YM, Chang CYJ. Ossicular chain reconstruction using titanium versus hydroxyapatite implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 Jun;144(6):954–8.
21.          Goldenberg RA, Driver M. Long-term results with hydroxylapatite middle ear implants. Otolaryngol Neck Surg [Internet]. 2000 May 1; 122(5): 635–42. Available from: https:// doi.org/ 10. 1067/ mhn.2000.105058
22.          Le PT, O’Connell BP, Baker AB, Keller RG, Lambert PR. Titanium Ossicular Chain Reconstruction Revision Success and Preoperative Factors Predicting Success. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Jul;157(1):99–106.
23.          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. Otol Neurotol  Off Publ Am Otol Soc  Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2011 Sep;32(7):1102–7.
24.          Schmerber S, Troussier J, Dumas G, Lavieille J-P, Nguyen D. Hearing results with the titanium ossicular replacement prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006 Apr;263(4):347–54.
26.          Murugasu E, Puria S, Roberson JBJ. Malleus-to-footplate versus malleus-to-stapes-head ossicular reconstruction prostheses: temporal bone pressure gain measurements and clinical audiological data. Otol Neurotol  Off Publ Am Otol Soc  Am Neurotol Soc [and] Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2005 Jul; 26(4): 572–82.
26.          Woods O, Fata F El, Saliba I. Ossicular reconstruction: incus versus universal titanium prosthesis. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2009 Aug; 36(4): 387–92.
Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 33, Issue 3
May and June 2021
Pages 143-149

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics