Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teflon Implants Versus Titanium Implants in Stapes Surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Otosclerosis is the most common cause of bilateral gradually progressive conductive hearing loss with normal tympanic membrane and Eustachian tube. Otosclerosis surgical treatment is one of the most gratifying operations in Otorhinolaryngology. It is not only the surgical techniques but also the prosthesis which are evolving in the attempt of providing best hearing results. Teflon piston is the most commonly employed prosthesis in stapes surgery. Titanium pistons are relatively the new development in the evolution of stapes prosthesis. The aim of this review article is to know and compare the surgical technicalities and postoperative outcomes including hearing improvement after the use of Teflon and titanium stapes piston. The adverse reactions occurred during follow-up were taken into consideration. The data in this article are supported by a Medline search. The use of both the prosthesis gave good results in cases of otosclerosis. The placement of titanium soft clip design was found easier than the earlier àWengen design of clip piston.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Topdağ DO, Topdağ M, Aydın O et al (2014) Evaluation of efficacy of otosclerosis surgery on hearing outcomes. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 24(3):137–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Casale M, De Franco A, Salvinelli F et al (2003) Hearing results in stapes surgery using two different prosthesis. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 124(4):255–258

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Causse J, Causse JB (1980) Eighteen year report on stapedectomy. Problems of stapedial fixation. Clin Otolaryngol 5:49–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gjuric M (1990) Microdrill versus perforator for stapedotomy. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 15:411–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shea J Jr (1958) Fenestration of the oval window. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 67:932–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tange RA, Grolman W (2008) An analysis of the air–bone gap closure obtained by a crimping and a non-crimping titanium stapes prosthesis in otosclerosis. Auris Nasus Larynx 35(2):181–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavaliere M, Ricciardiello F, Mesolella M et al (2012) Stapedotomy: functional results with different diameter prostheses. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 74(2):93–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Teig E, Lindeman H (1999) Stapedotomy piston diameter: Is bigger better? Otolaryngol Nova 9:252–256

    Google Scholar 

  9. Durko M, Pajor A, Jankowski A et al (2008) Does the material of stapes prosthesis influence hearing improvement in stapes surgery–retrospective analysis of 350 cases]. Otolaryngol Pol 62(4):480–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. de Bruijn AJ, Tange RA, Dreschler WA (1999) Comparison of stapes prostheses: a retrospective analysis of individual audiometric results obtained after stapedotomy by implantation of a gold and Teflon piston. Am J Otol 20:573–580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris JP, Gong S (2007) Comparison of hearing results of nitinol SMART stapes piston prosthesis with conventional piston prostheses: postoperative results of nitinol stapes prosthesis. Otol Neurotol 28(5):692–695

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mangham CA Jr (2008) Titanium CliP piston versus platinum-ribbon Teflon piston: piston and fenestra size affect air–bone gap. Otol Neurotol 29(1):8–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brar T, Passey JC, Agarwal AK (2012) Comparison of hearing outcome using a Nitinol versus Teflon prosthesis in stapedotomy. Acta Otolaryngol 132(11):1151–1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rajan GP, Diaz J, Blackham R et al (2007) Eliminating the limitations of manual crimping in stapes surgery: mid-term results of 90 patients in the Nitinol stapes piston multicenter trial. Laryngoscope 117(7):1236–1239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reineke U, Ebmeyer J, Plett D et al (2010) Superelastic nitinol stapes prostheses. Laryngorhinootologie 89(5):271–275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bast F, Schrom T (2009) First experiences with the new soft-clip piston as an alloplastic prosthesis during stapedotomy. Laryngorhinootologie 88(5):304–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Somers T, Marquet T, Goverts P et al (1994) Statistical analysis of otosclerosis surgery performed by Jean Marquet. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 103:945–951

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GAIMS, Bhuj, Gujarat, India

    Mohan Bansal

Authors
  1. Mohan Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohan Bansal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bansal, M. Teflon Implants Versus Titanium Implants in Stapes Surgery. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 68, 16–19 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-015-0938-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-015-0938-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation