Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T19:49:40.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-term outcome of ossiculoplasty using autogenous mastoid cortical bone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2014

Z Yu ,
L Zhang  and
D Han
Z Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University, PR China
L Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University, PR China Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (Ministry of Education of China), Beijing Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, PR China
D Han*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University, PR China Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (Ministry of Education of China), Beijing Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, PR China
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Demin Han, No.17, HouGouHuTong, DongCheng District, Beijing 100005, PR China Fax: 86 10 8511 5988 E-mail: dr.luozhang@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To observe the long-term outcome of ossiculoplasty using autogenous mastoid cortical bone in chronic otitis media in-patients.

Methods:

Sixty-one ears of 57 in-patients with chronic otitis media, with or without cholesteatoma, underwent type III tympanoplasty using autogenous mastoid cortical bone as the prosthetic material. Twenty-one ears were treated by canal wall down mastoidectomy and 40 ears by canal wall up mastoidectomy. The follow-up period was 3 to 6 years (average 4.2 years). Pure tone averages for thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kHz were calculated using standard conventional audiometry.

Results:

The pre-operative mean air–bone gap of 31.6 dB, for all ears, was reduced to 20.3 dB post-operatively. For the 40 canal wall up ears, this value decreased from 30.8 dB to 19.9 dB, and for the 21 canal wall down ears it decreased from 33.0 dB to 21.0 dB. The differences between the pre- and post-operative mean air–bone gap values were significant.

Conclusion:

No cases of extrusion, necrosis or resorption were exhibited for the autogenous mastoid cortical bone prosthesis. A significant hearing improvement was obtained in the majority of cases and this remained stable over time.

Keywords

Otitis MediaTympanoplastyHearingAutograftMastoid

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 866 - 870
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

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

1Slater, PW, Rizer, FM, Schuring, AG, Lippy, WH. Practical use of total and partial ossicular replacement prostheses in ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1193–8Google Scholar
2Bayazit, Y, Goksu, N, Beder, L. Functional results of Plastipore prostheses for middle ear ossicular chain reconstruction. Laryngoscope 1999;109:709–11Google Scholar
3House, JW, Teufert, KB. Extrusion rates and hearing results in ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;125:135–41Google Scholar
4Murphy, TP. Hearing results in pediatric patients with chronic otitis media after ossicular reconstruction with partial ossicular replacement prostheses and total ossicular replacement prostheses. Laryngoscope 2000;110:536–44Google Scholar
5Felek, SA, Celik, H, Islam, A, Elham, AH, Demirci, M, Samim, E. Type 2 ossiculoplasty: prognostic determination of hearing results by middle ear risk index. Am J Otol 2010;31:325–31Google Scholar
6Goldenberg, RA, Drive, M. Long-term results with hydroxyapatite middle ear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:635–42Google Scholar
7Grote, JJ. Reconstruction of the ossicular chain with hydroxyapatite prostheses. Am J Otol 1987;8:396–401Google ScholarPubMed
8Vrabec, JT, Stierman, K, Grady, JJ. Hydroxyapatite prosthesis extrusion. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:653–6Google Scholar
9Kobayashi, T, Gyo, K, Shinohara, T, Yanagihara, N. Ossicular reconstruction with hydroxyapatite prostheses with interposed cartilage. Am J Otol 2002;23:222–7Google Scholar
10Ho, SY, Battista, RA, Wiet, RJ. Early results with titanium ossicular implants. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:149–52Google Scholar
11Kim, HH, Wiet, RJ. Preferred technique in ossiculoplasty. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;14:243–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Yu, ZL, Yang, BT, Wang, ZCW, Han, DM, Zhang, L. Reconstruction of lateral attic wall using autogenous mastoid cortical bone. Am J Otol 2011;32:361–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Babu, S, Seidman, MD. Ossicular reconstruction using bone cement. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:903–9Google Scholar
14O'Reilly, RC, Cass, SP, Hirsch, BE, Kamerer, DB, Bernat, RA, Poznanovic, SP. Ossiculoplasty using incus interposition: hearing results and analysis of the middle ear index. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:835–8Google Scholar
15Iurato, S, Marioni, G, Onofri, M. Hearing result of ossiculoplasty in Austin-Kartush group A patients. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:140–4Google Scholar
16Tsuzuki, K, Yanagihara, N, Hinohira, Y, Sakagami, M. Tympanosclerosis involving the ossicular chain: mobility of the stapes in association with hearing results. Acta Otolaryngol 2006;126:1046–52Google Scholar
17Kartush, JM. Ossicular chain reconstruction. Capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:689–715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Mishiro, Y, Sakagami, M, Kitahara, T, Kondoh, K, Kubo, T. Long-term hearing outcomes after ossiculoplasty in comparison to short-term outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:326–9Google Scholar
19Krueger, WW, Feghali, JG, Shelton, C, Green, JD, Beatty, CW, Wilson, DF et al. Preliminary ossiculoplasty results using the Kurz titanium prostheses. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:836–9Google Scholar
20De Vos, C, Gersdorff, M, Gerard, JM. Prognosis factors in ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:61–7Google Scholar
21Gardner, EK, Jackson, CG, Kaylie, DM. Results with titanium ossicular reconstruction prostheses. Laryngoscope 2004;114:65–70Google Scholar
22Silverstain, H, McDaniel, AB, Lichtenstein, R. A comparison of PORP, TORP, and incus homograft for ossicular reconstruction in chronic ear surgery. Laryngoscope 1986;96:159–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Malafronte, G, Filosa, B, Mercone, F. A new double-cartilage block ossiculoplasty: long-term results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:531–3Google Scholar
24Shinohara, T, Gyo, K, Saiki, T, Yanagihara, N. Ossiculoplasty using hydroxyapatite prostheses: long-term results. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000;25:287–92Google Scholar
25Farrior, JB, Nichols, SW. Long-term results using ossicular grafts. Am J Otol 1996;17:386–92Google Scholar
26Yung, M, Vowler, SL. Long-term results in ossiculoplasty: an analysis of prognostic factors. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:874–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Berenholz, LP, Burkey, JM, Lippy, WH. Short- and long-term results of ossicular reconstruction using partial and total plastipore prostheses. Otol Neurotol 2013;34:884–9Google Scholar
28Merchant, SN, Rosowski, JJ, McKenna, MJ. Tympanoplasty. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;14:224–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Schuknecht, HF. Pathology of the Ear, 2nd edn.Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger,1993Google Scholar
30Merchant, SN, Nadol, JB Jr.Histopathology of ossicular implants. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:813–33Google Scholar
31Goode, RL, Nishihara, S. Experimental models of ossiculoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:663–75Google Scholar