Comparison of Ossiculoplasty Using Autograft Ossicle Versus Allograft (Teflon)

  • Anupriya Hajela
  • Sunil KumarEmail author
  • H. P. Singh
  • Veerendra Verma
Original Article


Chronic suppurative otitis media in almost any form can disrupt the integrity of ossicular chain. Various materials have been used for ossicular substitution or reconstruction, including both biologic and alloplastic materials. Teflon piston is now the most widely used prosthesis for reconstruction of the ossicular chain in cases of otosclerosis. The oto-surgeons are still confronted with problems of ossicular reconstruction regarding the surgical procedure to be done, type of graft to be selected especially in low and poor socioeconomic population. Thus, there is a need felt to comprehensively and holistically evaluate the outcome of ossiculoplasty using Autograft ossicle versus Allograft ossicle (Teflon). Total 64 patients of chronic suppurative otitis media with no active ear infection and air–bone–gap of more than 15 dB were admitted for surgery and divided into two groups according to material used for ossiculoplasty as group A (Autograft) and group B (Allograft). Patients were evaluated at 3 and 6 months post-operatively using audiogram. In both Group A and B, the average pre-operative AC was 40.62 dB (SD 9.65) and 39.37 (SD 10.53) respectively. In 3 months there was a change of 8.83% from 40.62 dB to 37.03 dB in Group-A (p < 0.109, not statistically significant) and 13.10% change from 39.37 dB to 34.21 dB in Group-B (p < 0.049, statistically significant) whereas at 6 months, air conduction improved by 14.22% in Group-A (p < 0.01, statistically significant) and by 21.81% in Group-B (p < 0.001, highly statistically significant). Post-operatively at 3 months, improved AB gap was 62.5% in Group-A and 68.75% in Group-B patients. Post-operative AB gap at 6 months, improvement was seen in 78.12% in Group-A while it was 81.25% in Group-B patients. Alloplastic Teflon ossicle appears to be a good alternative for ossicular reconstruction where autologous incus is not available or disease precludes its use.


Chronic suppurative otitis media Ossiculoplasty Alloplastic Teflon 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 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):853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ojala K, Sorri M, Vainio-Mattila J, Sipila P (1983) Late results of tympanoplasty using ossicle or cortical bone. J Laryngol Otol 97:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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):332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iurato S, Marioni G, Onofri M (2001) Hearing results of ossiculoplasty in Austin-Kartush Group A Patients. Otol Neurotol 22:140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emir H (2008) Ossiculoplasty with intact stapes: analysis of hearing results according to the middle ear risk. Acta Otolaryngol 31:1–7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillman TA, Shelton C (2003) Ossicular chain reconstruction: titanium versus plastipore. Laryngoscope 113:1731–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    House JW (2001) Extrusion rates and hearing results in ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125(3):135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anupriya Hajela
    • 1
  • Sunil Kumar
    • 2
    Email author
  • H. P. Singh
    • 2
  • Veerendra Verma
    • 2
  1. 1.Deptartement of ENT, Head Neck SurgeryBDBA Municipal General Hospital KandivaliMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck SurgeryKing George’s Medical UniversityLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations