Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T23:32:06.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty for reconstruction of Austin–Kartush type B ossicular defects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2019

U Düzenli  and
A F Kıroğlu
U Düzenli*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey
A F Kıroğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Ufuk Düzenli, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Bardakçı Village, Van, Turkey E-mail: drufukd35@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty functional outcomes were compared to those of other methods for reconstructing Austin–Kartush type B ossicular defects.

Methods

Forty-two patients underwent Austin–Kartush type B ossicular defect reconstruction using: manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty (13 patients), an autologous incus (19 patients) or a titanium ossicular replacement prosthesis (10 patients). For manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty reconstruction, the malleus head was removed, the manubrium was relocated posteriorly and the incus short process was placed on the mobile footplate. The manubrium was placed on the incus body groove and bone cement was applied to stabilise the manubrium–incus junction. Pre- and post-operative hearing thresholds were assessed.

Results

The air–bone gap decreased from 25.9 ± 6.0 dB to 12.3 ± 5.0 dB (p < 0.05) in the manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty group. The hearing gain was 13.6 ± 5.2 dB for manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty, 3.4 ± 14.2 dB with the autologous incus, and 3.3 ± 11.07 dB with the titanium ossicular replacement prosthesis. Hearing improvement was greater for manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty compared to the other reconstruction methods (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Manubrio-incudo-stapedioplasty resulted in satisfactory hearing outcomes in patients with Austin–Kartush type B ossicular defects. This technique can be considered a stable, inexpensive and effective method to reconstruct Austin–Kartush type B ossicular defects.

Keywords

Ossicular ProsthesisBone CementsConductive Hearing LossIncus

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 6 , June 2019 , pp. 457 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Dr U Düzenli takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Gardner, EK, Jackson, CG, Kaylie, DM. Results with titanium ossicular reconstruction prostheses. Laryngoscope 2004;114:65–70Google Scholar
2Babu, S, Seidman, MD. Ossicular reconstruction using bone cement. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:98–101Google Scholar
3O'Reilly, RC, Cass, SP, Hirsch, BE, Kamerer, DB, Bernat, RA, Poznanovic, SP. Ossiculoplasty using incus interposition: hearing results and analysis of the middle ear risk index. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:853–8Google Scholar
4Luers, JC, Huttenbrink, KB, Mickenhagen, A, Beutner, D. A modified prosthesis head for middle ear titanium implants—experimental and first clinical results. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:624–9Google Scholar
5Austin, DF. Ossicular reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol 1971;94:525–35Google Scholar
6Kartush, JM. Ossicular chain reconstruction. Capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:689–715Google Scholar
7Gerard, JM, De Bie, G, Franceschi, D, Deggouj, N, Gersdorff, M. Ossiculoplasty with hydroxyapatite bone cement: our reconstruction philosophy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:1629–35Google Scholar
8De Vos, C, Gersdorff, M, Gerard, JM. Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:61–7Google Scholar
9House, JW, Teufert, KB. Extrusion rates and hearing results in ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;125:135–41Google Scholar
10Ashraf, B, Ghonim, MR, Eladl, HM, Elsisi, H. Role of malleus relocation in cholesteatoma surgery: our experience in 145 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42:738–43Google Scholar
11Zakzouk, A, Bonmardion, N, Bouchetemble, P, Lerosey, Y, Marie, JP. Titanium prosthesis or autologous incus for total ossicular reconstruction in the absence of the stapes suprastructure and presence of mobile footplate. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:2653–7Google Scholar
12Emir, H, Kizilkaya Kaptan, Z, Gocmen, H, Uzunkulaoglu, H, Tuzuner, A, Bayiz, U et al. Ossiculoplasty with intact stapes: analysis of hearing results according to the middle ear risk index. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:1088–94Google Scholar
13Vassbotn, FS, Moller, P, Silvola, J. Short-term results using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007;264:21–5Google Scholar
14Smyth, GD. TORPs—how have they fared after five years? J Laryngol Otol 1983;97:991–3Google Scholar
15Beutner, D, Luers, JC, Huttenbrink, KB. Cartilage ‘shoe’: a new technique for stabilisation of titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis at centre of stapes footplate. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:682–6Google Scholar
16Mantei, 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 2011;32:1102–7Google Scholar
17Berenholz, L, Burkey, J, Lippy, W. Total ossiculoplasty: advantages of two-point stabilization technique. Int J Otolaryngol 2012;2012:346260Google Scholar
18Vincent, R, Rovers, M, Mistry, N, Oates, J, Sperling, N, Grolman, W. Ossiculoplasty in intact stapes and malleus patients: a comparison of PORPs versus TORPs with malleus relocation and Silastic banding techniques. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:616–25Google Scholar
19Murugasu, E, Puria, S, Roberson, JB Jr. Malleus-to-footplate versus malleus-to-stapes-head ossicular reconstruction prostheses: temporal bone pressure gain measurements and clinical audiological data. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:572–82Google Scholar
20Stankovic, MD. Audiologic results of surgery for cholesteatoma: short- and long-term follow-up of influential factors. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:933–40Google Scholar
21Dornhoffer, JL, Gardner, E. Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty: a statistical staging system. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:299–304Google Scholar
22Redaelli de Zinis, LO. Titanium vs hydroxyapatite ossiculoplasty in canal wall down mastoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;134:1283–7Google Scholar
23Vincent, R, Oates, J, Sperling, NM, Annamalai, S. Malleus relocation in ossicular reconstruction: managing the anteriorly positioned malleus: results in a series of 268 cases. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:223–30Google Scholar
24Vlaming, MS, Feenstra, L. Studies on the mechanics of the reconstructed human middle ear. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1986;11:411–22Google Scholar
25Asai, M, Roberson, JB Jr, Goode, RL. Acoustic effect of malleus head removal and tensor tympani muscle section on middle ear reconstruction. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1217–22Google Scholar
26Sennaroglu, L, Gungor, V, Atay, G, Ozer, S. Manubrio-stapedioplasty: new surgical technique for malleus and incus fixation due to tympanosclerosis. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:587–90Google Scholar