Ossiculoplasty: A Prospective Study of 80 Cases

Chavan, Shrinivas Shripatrao; V Jain, Prateek; N Vedi, Jeevan; Kumar Rai, Dharmendra; Kadri, Himayat

doi:10.22038/ijorl.2014.2571

Ossiculoplasty: A Prospective Study of 80 Cases

Document Type : Original

Authors

¹ Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, India.

² Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, India

10.22038/ijorl.2014.2571

Abstract

Introduction:
The use of ossicular graft material in ossicular chain reconstruction has significantly improved hearing results hearing after tympanoplasty and tympanomastoid surgery for chronic otitis media. Today, otologists have a wide array of tools from which to choose, but may find it difficult to know which middle ear implant works best.

Materials and Methods:
A prospective study of 80 patients who underwent ossiculoplasty was performed in the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) department at a tertiary health care facility from 2011 to 2013. Patients with chronic suppurative otitis media with an air-bone gap (ABG) of >25 dB with ossicular involvement were included in the study. Total ossicular replacement prosthesis (TORP), partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP), and refashioned incus were used. Success was defined as ABG
Results:
The majority patients were of middle age with moderate conductive hearing loss. Incus was the most susceptible ossicle. Overall success rate in this study was 80.0% with an average change of 15.76 dB in ABG.

Conclusion:
With continuing advances in our understanding of middle ear mechanics, the results of ossiculoplasty are improving and results can be very rewarding in experienced hands. Severity of preoperative ear discharge, preoperative mastoid cellularity, presence of disease, and surgical procedure proved to be significant prognostic factors. Autograft incus and PORP fared better when the malleus handle was present while TORP gave better results when the malleus handle was eroded.

Keywords

References

1.Yung M. Long-term results of ossiculoplasty: reasons for surgical failure. Otology and Neurotology 2006; 27: 20–26.

2. Dornhoffer JL, Gardner E. Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty: a statistical staging system. Otology and Neurotology 2001; 22: 299–304.

3.Wehrs RE. The borrowed ossicle in tympanoplasty. Archives of Otolaryngology 1967; 85: 371–9.

4. Wehrs RE. The homograft notched incus in tympanoplasty. Archives of Otolaryngology 1974; 100: 251–5.

5. Dhingra PL, Dhingra S. Hearing Loss in: Diseases of Ear, Nose and Throat. 5^th ed. New Delhi. Reed Elsevier India Private Limited. 2011: 34-45.

6. Athanasiadis- Sismanis A, Poe DS. Ossicular Chain Reconstruction in: Gulya AJ, Minor LB, Poe DS Glasscock- Shambaugh Surgery of the Ear. 6^th Ed. Connecticut: People’s Medical Publishing House. 2010: 489-99.

7. Eleftheriadou A, Chalastras T, Georgopoulos S, Yiotakis J, Manolopoulos L, Iliadis I, Charalabopoulos K, Kandiloros D. Long-term results of plastipore prostheses in reconstruction of the middle ear ossicular chain. ORL J Otorhino- laryngol Relat Spec. 2009;71(5):284-8.

8. Bellucci RJ. Selection of cases and classification of tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1989; 22(5):911-26.

9. Black B. Ossiculoplasty prognosis: the SPITE method of assessment.AmJOtol. 1992; 13(6): 544-51.

10. Albu S, Babighian G, Trabalzini F. Prognostic factors in tympanoplasty.AmJOtol 1998; 19(2): 136-140.

11. Brackmann DE, Sheehy JL, Luxford WM. TORPs and PORPs in tympanoplasty: a review of 1042 operations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1984; 92: 32–7.

12. Shea MC. The use of silastic in tympanoplasty surgery. Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences 1981; 6: 125-6.

13. Wright T, Valentine P. The anatomy and embryology of the external and middle ear in: Gleeson M, Browning GG, Burton MJ, Clarke RW, Hibbert J, Jones NS et al. Scott- Brown’s Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. 7^th Ed. Great Britain: Hodder Arnold. 2008: 3105- 25.

14. Ars B, Decraemer W, Ars-Piret N. Tympano-ossicular allografts: morphology and physiology. Am J Otol 1987; 8: 148- 54.

15. Mishiro Y, Sakagami M, Adachi O, Kakutani C. Prognostic factors for short- term outcomes after ossiculoplasty using multivariate analysis with logistic regression. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 135: 738- 41.

16. Goldenberg RA. Hydroxylapatite ossicular replacement prostheses: preliminary results. Laryngoscope 1990; 100(7): 693–700.

17. Jha S, Mehta K, Prajapati V, Patel D, Kharadi P. A comparative study of Ossiculoplasty using various graft Materials. NJIRM 2011; 2(4): 53-56.

18. Gary Jackson C, Glasscock ME, Schwaber MK, Nissen AJ, Christiansen SG, Smith PG. Ossicular chain reconstruction: the TORP and PORP in chronic ear disease. Laryngoscope 1983; 93(8): 981-8.

19. Dornhoffer JL. Surgical modification of the difficult mastoid cavity. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 120(3): 361–7.