Advertisement

Archives of oto-rhino-laryngology

, Volume 243, Issue 1, pp 20–23 | Cite as

A comparative study of the clinical results obtained with plastipore and ceramic ossicular prostheses in otologic surgery

  • M. Gersdorff
  • M. Andre
Article
  • 21 Downloads

Summary

We describe our experience with clinical tolerance to total and partial ossicular prostheses using ceramic and plastipore and the functional results obtained. We have found that ceramic is well tolerated (with a 4% incidence of rejection) in contrast to plastipore (which had a 19% incidence of rejection). The ceramic partial and total prostheses give satisfactory function results, and 63% and 62% of our patients, respectively, were found to have postoperative air-bone gaps of less than 20 dB, and average air-bone gap gains of 16 and 21 dB.

Key words

Ossicular prostheses Plastipore Ceramics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Blencke BA, Bromer H, Deutscher K (1978) Compatibility and long-term stability of glass ceramic implants. J Biomed Mater Res 12:307–316Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gersdorff M, Fourneau AF (1980) Tolérance des prosthèses en plastipore en chirurgie otologique. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 34:318–324Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harner SG, Facer GW, McDonald JJ (1979) Experience with a polyethylene total ossicular replacement prosthesis. Arch Otolaryngol 105:137–139Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hench LL, Splinter RJ, Allen WC (1971) Bonding mechanisms at the interface of ceramic prosthetic materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2:117–141Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plester D, Jahnke K (1984) Ceramic implants in otologic surgery. Am J Otol 3:104–108Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Portmann M (1978) Oreille et os temporal. In: Portmann M, Guerrier Y (eds) Traité de techniques chirurgicales O.R.L. et cervico-faciale, vol 1. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Portmann M, Bebear JP, Bagot d'Arc M (1982) Les prosthéses ossiculaire biocompatibles en proplast et plastipore. Revue Laryngol 103:9–13Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Portmann M, Bebear JP, Badot d'Arc M, Diogo de Paiva A (1983) Comparative study of different ossicular protheses in tympanoplasty. Analysis of clinical results, histopathological and hearing in the long term. First International Symposium: Biomaterials in Otology, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reck R (1983) Bioactive glass ceramic. A new material in tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 98:196–199Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Gersdorff
    • 1
  • M. Andre
    • 1
  1. 1.Service d'O.R.L., Cliniques St. LucUniversity of LouvainBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations