Hostname: page-component-6565fbc58-sjvkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-11T19:36:12.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autologous fitted incus versus PlastiporeTM PORP in ossicular cgain reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

M. Sanna ,
R. Gamoletti ,
R. Scandellari ,
P. Delogu ,
M. Magnani  and
C. Zini
M. Sanna*
Affiliation:
Parma, Italy
R. Gamoletti
Affiliation:
Parma, Italy
R. Scandellari
Affiliation:
Parma, Italy
P. Delogu
Affiliation:
Parma, Italy
M. Magnani
Affiliation:
Parma, Italy
C. Zini
Affiliation:
Parma, Italy
*
Mario Sanna, M.D., Clinica Ototinolaringoiatrica 2°, Ospedale Maggiore—Via Gramsci 14, 43100 Parma, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hearing results and causes of failure with three types of ossicular reconstruction techniques over an infact stapes, during second-stage intact canal wall tympanoplasty, are reporte herein.

The three types of reconstruction are: fitted autologous incuc (38 cases): PlastiporeTM PORP with cartilage (41 cases): PlastiporeTM PORP without cartilage (32 cases).

A residual air-bone gap within 15 dB. was found in 63.2 per cent of fitted incudes, in 41.5 per cent of PORPs with cartilage, and in only 37 per cent of PORPs without cartilage.

Eighty-four per cent fitted incudes, 63 per cent PORPs with cartilage and 44 per cent PORPs without cartilage yielded a residual air-bone gap within 25 dB.

Extrusion has been the main cause of failure among PlastiporeTM prostheses.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , February 1985 , pp. 137 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1985

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

References

Armstrong, B. W. (1969) Experiences with the ossicular chain. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 78: 939–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Austin, D. F. (1971) Ossicular reconstruction. Archives of Otolaryngology, 94: 525–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brackmann, D. E. and Sheehy, J. L. (1979) Tympanoplasty: TORPs and PORPs. Laryngoscope, 89: 108–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrior, J. B. (1960) Ossicular repositioning and ossicular prostheses in tympanoplasty. Archives of Otolaryngology, 71: 443–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisch, U. (1980) Tympanoplasty and stapedectomy. A manual of techniques. G. Thieme Verlag. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Glasscock, M. E. III (1976) Ossicular chain reconstruction. Laryngoscope, 86: 211–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, F. R. (1965) Repositioning of the incus. Laryngoscope, 75: 236–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussl, B., Boheim, K. and Welzl-Muller, K. (1981) Die Rekonstruktion der Schalleitungskette: Plastipore - Prothesen im Vergleich zu autologen und allogenen Ossikula. Laryngologie, Rhinologie, Otologie, 60: 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montandon, P. B. and Suard, J. C. (1978) Le remplacement de l'enclume dans les reconstructions de la chaine ossiculaire. Journal Français d'Oto-rhino-laryngologie, 27: 323–328.Google Scholar
Palva, T., Palva, A. and Karja, J. (1973) Ossicular reconstruction in chronic ear surgery. Archives of Otolaryngology. 98: 340–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennington, C. L. (1973) Incus interposition techniques. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 82: 518–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulec, J. L. and Sheehy, J. L. (1973) Tympanoplasty: ossicular chain reconstruction. Laryngoscope, 83: 448–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanna, M., Magnani, M. and Gamoletti, R. (1981) Ossicular chain reconstruction with Plastipore prostheses. American Journal of Otology, 2: 225–229.Google ScholarPubMed
Sanna, M., Gamoletti, R., Magnani, M., Bacciu, S. and Zini, C. (1982) Enhanced biofunctionality of Plastipore ossicular prostheses with the use of homologous cartilage, American Journal of Otology, 4: 138–141.Google ScholarPubMed
Sanna, M., Gamoletti, R., Magnani, M. and Zini, C. (1983) Plastipore prostheses for ossicular chain reconstruction in tympanoplasty. First International Symposium ‘Biomaterials in Otology’Leiden (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehy, J. L. (1965) Ossicular problems in tympanoplasty. Archives of Otolaryngology, 81: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smyth, G. D. L. (1971) Current thoughts on combined approach tympanoplasty. Part III. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 85: 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, G. D. L. (1982) Five year experience on partial ossicular replacement prosthesis and total ossicular replacement prosthesis. Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery, 90: 343–346.Google Scholar
Smyth, G. D. L. and Hassard, T. H. (1981) The evolution policies in the surgical treatment of acquired cholesteatoma of the tubotympanic cleft. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 95: 767–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smyth, G. D. L., Hassard, T. H., Kerr, A. G. and Houlihan, F. P. (1978) Ossicular replacement prostheses. Archives of Otolaryngology, 104: 345–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zini, C., Sanna, M., Bacciu, S. and Jemmi, G. (1979) Cinq années d'expérience des hétérogreffes tympaniques moulées. LXXV Congres Française ORL, pp. 83–88. Arnette Ed.Paris.Google Scholar