Advertisement

Hearing Improvement in Interposition Ossiculoplasty and Myringostapediopexy

  • Shashank ChaudharyEmail author
  • K. C. Prasad
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Chronic otitis media (COM) may lead to partial or complete loss of tympanic membrane and erosion of the ossicles. Ossicular chain reconstruction may be done by interposition ossiculoplasty or myringostapediopexy. The aim of our study was to determine the hearing outcome in interposition ossiculoplasty and myringostapediopexy using autologous incus or cortical bone graft in intact canal wall tympanoplasty. 64 patients with COM, who underwent interposition ossiculoplasty or myringostapediopexy were included in the study. Audiometric evaluation was done after 3 months after surgery and all patients were followed up for a period of 1 year. The hearing results were compared in terms of mean pre-op and post-op Air conduction thresholds, Air-Bone gap (ABG) and hearing gain or ABG closure. In this study the mean ABG closure for interposition ossiculoplasty and myringostapediopexy was 15.4 dB and 21.8 dB, respectively. Hearing gain with cortical bone graft was higher than hearing gains with incus in both the groups, but not statistically significant. Myringostapediopexy provides marginally better hearing gain compared to interposition ossiculoplasty. Aulogous incus, and cortical bone graft are suitable autologous materials for ossicular reconstruction and provide similar hearing outcome.

Keywords

Chronic otitis media Interposition ossiculoplasty Myringostapediopexy Autologous incus Cortical bone graft Intact canal wall mastoidectomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Naragund AI, Mudhol RS, Harugop AS, Patil PH (2011) Ossiculoplasty with autologus incus versus titanium prosthesis: a comparison of anatomical and functional results. Indian J Otol 17:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin DF (1972) Ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 5:145–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Committee on hearing and equilibrium (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for evaluations of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:186–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adhikari B, A Ghosh, Pal S, Haque F (2016) Clinico-audiological comparison between classical type-III tympanoplasty and ossiculoplasty using autograft ossicles in patients with Austin type A defects. Int J Contemp Med Res 3:2422–2425Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corso ED, Marshese MR, Sergi B, Rigante M, Paludetti G (2007) Role of ossiculolasty in canal wall down tympanoplasty for middle-ear cholesteatoma: hearing results. J Laryngol Otol 121:324–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 26:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iurato S, Marioni G, Onofri M (2001) Hearing results of ossiculoplasty in Austin-Kartush group A patients. Otol Neurotol 22:140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quaranta N, Feijoo SF, Piazza F, Zini C (2001) Closed tympanoplasty in cholesteatoma surgery: long term (10 years) hearing results using cartilage ossiculoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook JA (1996) Hearing results following modified radical versus canal-up mastoidectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105:379–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berenholz LP, Rizer FM, Burkey JM, Schuring AG, Lippy WH (2000) Ossiculoplasty in canal wall down mastoidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh VP, Sharma N, Bansal C (2017) Comparison of myringostapediopexy and malleostapediopexy tympanoplasty with sculptured incus in case of hearing reconstructuin in tubotympanic chronic otitis media: a case series. Indian J Otol 23:189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mudhol RS, Naragund AI, Shruti VS (2013) Ossiculoplsty: revisited. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 65:451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Mills RP (1993) The use of cortical bone grafts in ossiculoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 107:686–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Romanet P, Duvillard C, Delouane M (2000) Mastoid cortical bone grafts in ossiculoplasty. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 117:105–109PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.M.S Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck SurgeryFaridabadIndia

Personalised recommendations