Skip to main content
Log in

Titanium incus interposition ossiculoplasty: audiological outcomes and extrusion rates

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the benefit but also the extrusions, dislocations, and failures of a titanium incus prosthesis along with the long-term audiological outcomes. We prospectively collected data from 139 patients undergoing ossiculoplasty using the Fisch titanium incus prosthesis between 2001 and 2016. Overall, 126 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up (mean 4.5 years, range 6–155 months) were analyzed. Patients were grouped as “extrusion” (n = 9, 7%) if the prosthesis extruded, “failure” (n = 22, 18%) if a reoperation was needed concerning the prosthesis, and “stable” (n = 95, 75%) if the prosthesis remained functional in the middle ear. Mean postoperative air bone gaps (ABG) for 0.5–3 kHz for the overall group and the stable group were 19.8 (±11.9) and 15.3 (±7.5), respectively. Long-term results of stable group revealed an ABG (0.5–3 kHz) below 10 dB in 25% and below 20 dB in 81% of the patients. Atelectasis was the most frequent cause of extrusion, which occurred after a mean time of 28.7 months (range 15–48 months). Mean timing for reoperation was 30.7 months (range 5–131 months) in the failure group. There was no significant difference in mean postoperative ABG among patients with or without cholesteatoma, primary or staged ossiculoplasty in cholesteatoma, presence or absence of malleus head at the time of ossiculoplasty, open or closed cavity surgeries, or the degree of pneumatization of the temporal bone. The Fisch titanium incus prosthesis is a reliable alternative to using autologous incus for interposition ossiculoplasty, with similar hearing outcomes. Using this prosthesis, a 15 dB ABG should be expected.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. O’Reilly RC, Cass SP, Hirsch BE, Kamerer DB, Bernat RA, Poznanovic SP (2005) Ossiculoplasty using incus interposition: hearing results and analysis of the middle ear risk index. Otol Neurotol 26(5):853–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siddiq M, East D (2004) Long-term hearing results of incus transposition. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 29(2):115–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. House JW, Teufert KB (2001) Extrusion rates and hearing results in ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125(3):135–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vrabec JT, Stierman K, Grady JJ (2002) Hydroxyapatite prosthesis extrusion. Otol Neurotol 23(5):653–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisch U, May JS, Linder T (2008) Tympanoplasty, mastoidectomy and stapes surgery, vol 2. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jang C (2002) Changes in external ear resonance after mastoidectomy: open cavity mastoid versus obliterated mastoid cavity. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 27(6):509–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng JT, Hamade M, Merchant SN, Rosowski JJ, Harrington E, Furlong C (2013) Wave motion on the surface of the human tympanic membrane: holographic measurement and modeling analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 133(2):918–937

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bance M, Rosowski JJ, Adamson RBA (2016) Middle ear mechanics in hearing reconsruction. In: Dornhoffer JL, Gluth MB (eds) The chronic ear. Thieme, New York, pp 62–79

    Google Scholar 

  9. Morris DP, Bance M, van Wijhe RG, Kiefte M, Smith R (2004) Optimum tension for partial ossicular replacement prosthesis reconstruction in the human middle ear. Laryngoscope 114(2):305–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yamada H, Goode RL (2010) A self-adjusting ossicular prosthesis containing polyurethane sponge. Otol Neurotol 31(9):1404–1408

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vlaming M, Feenstra L (1986) Studies on the mechanics of the reconstructed human middle ear. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 11(6):411–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kelly D, Prendergast PJ, Blayney A (2003) The effect of prosthesis design on vibration of the reconstructed ossicular chain: a comparative finite element analysis of four prostheses. Otol Neurotol 24(1):11–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wever EG, Lawrence M (2015) Physiological acoustics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  14. Meulemans J, Wuyts FL, Forton GE (2013) Middle ear reconstruction using the titanium Kurz Variac partial ossicular replacement prosthesis: functional results. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(10):1017–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Quesnel S, Teissier N, Viala P, Couloigner V, Van Den Abbeele T (2010) Long term results of ossiculoplasties with partial and total titanium Vario Kurz prostheses in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 74(11):1226–1229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Iñiguez-Cuadra R, Alobid I, Borés-Domenech A, Menéndez-Colino L-M, Caballero-Borrego M, Bernal-Sprekelsen M (2010) Type III tympanoplasty with titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol 31(3):409–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmerber S, Troussier J, Dumas G, Lavieille J-P, D-q Nguyen (2006) Hearing results with the titanium ossicular replacement prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck 263(4):347–354

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pringle MB, Sunkaraneni VS, Tann N (2014) Is cartilage interposition required for ossiculoplasty with titanium prostheses? Otol Neurotol 35(3):482–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Coffey CS, Lee FS, Lambert PR (2008) Titanium versus nontitanium prostheses in ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope 118(9):1650–1658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hess-Erga J, Møller P, Vassbotn FS (2013) Long-term hearing result using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(6):1817–1821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dalchow C, Grün D, Stupp H (2001) Reconstruction of the ossicular chain with titanium implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125(6):628–630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Somers T, Van Rompaey V, Claes G, Salembier L, van Dinther J, Andrzej Z, Offeciers E (2012) Ossicular reconstruction: hydroxyapatite bone cement versus incus remodelling. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269(4):1095–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neudert M, Zahnert T, Lasurashvili N, Bornitz M, Lavcheva Z, Offergeld C (2009) Partial ossicular reconstruction: comparison of three different prostheses in clinical and experimental studies. Otol Neurotol 30(3):332–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the help of Dr. Med. Katia Dalkowski (kdalkowski@online.de) for her illustration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Linder.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The study was approved by the hospital Ethical committee. The authors have no sources of financial support or funding to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mulazimoglu, S., Saxby, A., Schlegel, C. et al. Titanium incus interposition ossiculoplasty: audiological outcomes and extrusion rates. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274, 3303–3310 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4634-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4634-4

Keywords

Navigation