Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PORP vs. TORP: a meta-analysis

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

Abstract

After the surgical procedure of ossicular chain reconstruction, the effectiveness and/or stability of partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP) or total ossicular replacement prosthesis (TORP) were systematically compared and evaluated using meta-analysis. A total of 40 eligible investigations with 4,311 subjects were included in our study. There was a significant difference in the effectiveness of the reconstruction of the ossicular chain between PORP and TORP; the data showed a combined risk ratio (RR) of 1.28 (95 % CI 1.17–1.41, p < 0.00001), but no notable difference was obtained in staged procedures subgroup and cholesteatoma subgroup, with a combined RR of 1.13 (95 % CI 0.60–2.11, p = 0.70) in staged procedures subgroup and RR of 2.60 (95 % CI 0.20–36.21, p = 0.59 in cholesteatoma subgroup). There was a statistically significant difference in the stability of the prostheses in long-term follow-up, with a combined RR of 0.37 (95 % CI 0.16–0.85, p = 0.02), but no significant difference was observed in the total sample, with a combined RR of 0.64 (95 % CI 0.40–1.03, p = 0.06). Our overall results suggest that the effectiveness of PORP was higher than TORP, except within staged procedures subgroup and cholesteatoma subgroup. In addition, the stability of PORP was significantly superior to TORP in long-term follow-ups, but no significant effect was detected in the general study.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pfiffner F, Caversaccio MD, Kompis M (2011) Comparisons of sound processors based on osseointegrated implants in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 32:728–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yung M, Vowler SL (2006) Long-term results in ossiculoplasty: an analysis of prognostic factors. Otol Neurotol 27:874–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Merchant SN, Lasurashvili N, Neudert M, Bornitz M, Laszig R, Zahnert T (2010) Experimental investigation of rotational tomography in reconstructed middle ears with clinical implications. Hear Res 263:191–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zollner F (1955) The principles of plastic surgery of the sound-conducting apparatus. J Laryngol Otol 69:637–652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang LC, Zhang TY, Dai PD, Luo JF (2011) Titanium versus non-titanium prostheses in ossiculoplasty: a meta-analysis. Acta Otolaryngol 131:708–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bayazit Y, Goksu N, Beder L (1999) Functional results of Plastipore prostheses for middle ear ossicular chain reconstruction. Laryngoscope 109:709–711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernal-Sprekelsen M, Romaguera Lliso MD, Sanz Gonzalo JJ (2003) Cartilage palisades in type III tympanoplasty: anatomic and functional long-term results. Otol Neurotol 24:38–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vassbotn FS, Moller P, Silvola J (2007) Short-term results using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:21–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Asai M, Huber AM, Goode RL (1999) Analysis of the best site on the stapes footplate for ossicular chain reconstruction. Acta Otolaryngol 119:356–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jackson CG, Glasscock ME 3rd, Schwaber MK, Nissen AJ, Christiansen SG, Smith PG (1983) Ossicular chain reconstruction: the TORP and PORP in chronic ear disease. Laryngoscope 93:981–988

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Glasscock ME 3rd (1976) Ossicular chain reconstruction. Laryngoscope 86:211–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brackmann DE (1993) Tympanoplasty with mastoidectomy: canal wall up procedures. Am J Otol 14:380–382

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Murugasu E, Puria S, Roberson JB Jr (2005) Malleus-to-footplate versus malleus-to-stapes-head ossicular reconstruction prostheses: temporal bone pressure gain measurements and clinical audiological data. Otol Neurotol 26:572–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vincent R, Rovers M, Mistry N, Oates J, Sperling N, Grolman W (2011) Ossiculoplasty in intact stapes and malleus patients: a comparison of PORPs versus TORPs with malleus relocation and silastic banding techniques. Otol Neurotol 32:616–625

    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 74:1226–1229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moretz WH Jr (1998) Ossiculoplasty with an intact stapes: superstructure versus footplate prosthesis placement. Laryngoscope 108:1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sen GL, Reuter JA, Webster DE, Zhu L, Khavari PA (2010) DNMT1 maintains progenitor function in self-renewing somatic tissue. Nature 463:563–567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hahn M, Dambacher S, Schotta G (2010) Heterochromatin dysregulation in human diseases. J Appl Physiol 109:232–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li HM, Peng RR, Li J, Yin YP, Wang B, Cohen MS, Chen XS (2011) HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in China: a meta-analysis of published studies. PLoS One 6:e23431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kobayashi T, Gyo K, Shinohara T, Yanagihara N (2002) Ossicular reconstruction using hydroxyapatite prostheses with interposed cartilage. Am J Otolaryngol 23:222–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Macias JD, Glasscock ME 3rd, Widick MH, Schall DG, Haynes DS, Josey AF (1995) Ossiculoplasty using the black hydroxylapatite hybrid ossicular replacement prostheses. Am J Otol 16:718–721

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shinohara T, Gyo K, Saiki T, Yanagihara N (2000) Ossiculoplasty using hydroxyapatite prostheses: long-term results. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 25:287–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Slater PW, Rizer FM, Schuring AG, Lippy WH (1997) Practical use of total and partial ossicular replacement prostheses in ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope 107:1193–1198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rust KR, Singleton GT, Wilson J, Antonelli PJ (1996) Bioglass middle ear prosthesis: long-term results. Am J Otol 17:371–374

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eleftheriadou A, Chalastras T, Georgopoulos S, Yiotakis J, Manolopoulos L, Iliadis I, Charalabopoulos K, Kandiloros D (2009) Long-term results of plastipore prostheses in reconstruction of the middle ear ossicular chain. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 71:284–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fong JC, Michael P, Raut V (2010) Titanium versus autograft ossiculoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol 130:554–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Michael P, Fong J, Raut V (2008) Kurz titanium prostheses in paediatric ossiculoplasty—short term results. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 72:1329–1333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nikolaou A, Bourikas Z, Maltas V, Aidonis A (1992) Ossiculoplasty with the use of autografts and synthetic prosthetic materials: a comparison of results in 165 cases. J Laryngol Otol 106:692–694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Quaranta N, Fernandez-Vega Feijoo S, Piazza F, Zini C (2001) Closed tympanoplasty in cholesteatoma surgery: long-term (10 years) hearing results using cartilage ossiculoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:20–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schmerber S, Troussier J, Dumas G, Lavieille JP, Nguyen DQ (2006) Hearing results with the titanium ossicular replacement prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263:347–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Siddiq MA, Raut VV (2007) Early results of titanium ossiculoplasty using the Kurz titanium prosthesis–a UK perspective. J Laryngol Otol 121:539–544

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Martins J, Silva H, Certal V, Amorim H, Carvalho C (2011) Osiculoplastia con prótesis de titanio. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 62:295–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Alaani A, Raut VV (2010) Kurz titanium prosthesis ossiculoplasty–follow-up statistical analysis of factors affecting one year hearing results. Auris Nasus Larynx 37:150–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dornhoffer JL (1998) Hearing results with the Dornhoffer ossicular replacement prostheses. Laryngoscope 108:531–536

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gardner EK, Jackson CG, Kaylie DM (2004) Results with titanium ossicular reconstruction prostheses. Laryngoscope 114:65–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gehrking E (2010) Osteoplastic atticoantrotomy with autologous bone chips and a bony attic strut in cholesteatoma surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:1055–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hillman TA, Shelton C (2003) Ossicular chain reconstruction: titanium versus plastipore. Laryngoscope 113:1731–1735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ho SY, Battista RA, Wiet RJ (2003) Early results with titanium ossicular implants. Otol Neurotol 24:149–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mardassi A, Deveze A, Sanjuan M, Mancini J, Parikh B, Elbedeiwy A, Magnan J, Lavieille JP (2011) Titanium ossicular chain replacement prostheses: prognostic factors and preliminary functional results. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 128:53–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rondini-Gilli E, Grayeli AB, Borges Crosara PF, El Garem H, Mosnier I, Bouccara D, Sterkers O (2003) Ossiculoplasty with total hydroxylapatite prostheses anatomical and functional outcomes. Otol Neurotol 24:543–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Truy E, Naiman AN, Pavillon C, Abedipour D, Lina-Granade G, Rabilloud M (2007) Hydroxyapatite versus titanium ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol 28:492–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yung M, Smith P (2010) Titanium versus nontitanium ossicular prostheses-a randomized controlled study of the medium-term outcome. Otol Neurotol 31:752–758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zenner HP, Stegmaier A, Lehner R, Baumann I, Zimmermann R (2001) Open Tubingen titanium prostheses for ossiculoplasty: a prospective clinical trial. Otol Neurotol 22:582–589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim HH, Battista RA, Kumar A, Wiet RJ (2006) Should ossicular reconstruction be staged following tympanomastoidectomy. Laryngoscope 116:47–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Martin AD, Harner SG (2004) Ossicular reconstruction with titanium prosthesis. Laryngoscope 114:61–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Quaranta N, Zizzi S, Quaranta A (2011) Hearing results using titanium ossicular replacement prosthesis in intact canal wall tympanoplasty for cholesteatoma. Acta Otolaryngol 131:36–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Black B (1991) A universal ossicular replacement prosthesis: clinical trials of 152 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 104:210–218

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Emmett JR, Shea JJ Jr, Moretz WH Jr (1986) Long-term experience with biocompatible ossicular implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 94:611–616

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jung TT, Park SK (2005) Mediolateral graft tympanoplasty for anterior or subtotal tympanic membrane perforation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:532–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nguyen DQ, Morel N, Dumas G, Troussier J, Lavieille JP, Schmerber S (2005) Ossiculoplasty with KURZ titanium prosthesis. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 122:187–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Reck R, Storkel S, Meyer A (1988) Bioactive glass-ceramics in middle ear surgery. An 8-year review. Ann N Y Acad Sci 523:100–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Silverstein H, McDaniel AB, Lichtenstein R (1986) A comparison of PORP, TORP, and incus homograft for ossicular reconstruction in chronic ear surgery. Laryngoscope 96:159–165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Colletti V, Carner M, Colletti L (2009) TORP vs round window implant for hearing restoration of patients with extensive ossicular chain defect. Acta Otolaryngol 129:449–452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Fisch U (1978) Reconstruction of the ossicular chain (author’s transl). HNO 26:53–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rathert P, Dhayalan A, Murakami M, Zhang X, Tamas R, Jurkowska R, Komatsu Y, Shinkai Y, Cheng X, Jeltsch A (2008) Protein lysine methyltransferase G9a acts on non-histone targets. Nat Chem Biol 4:344–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sheehy JL, Crabtree JA (1973) Tympanoplasty: staging the operation. Laryngoscope 83:1594–1621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Shelton C, Sheehy JL (1990) Tympanoplasty: review of 400 staged cases. Laryngoscope 100:679–681

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Huttenbrink KB, Zahnert T, Beutner D, Hofmann G (2004) The cartilage guide: a solution for anchoring a columella-prosthesis on footplate. Laryngorhinootologie 83:450–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Lichun Zhang and Chunyu Zhang for kind advice on statistical analysis. This work was supported by grants from the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (973 Program) (2011CB504506, 2010CB945503).

Conflict of interest

Equal contribution as first author (Huiqian Yu and Yingzi He). We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Shanghai Eye and ENT Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 200031, Shanghai, China

    Huiqian Yu, Yusu Ni, Yunfeng Wang, Na Lu & Huawei Li

  2. Institutes of Biomedical Sciences, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 200032, Shanghai, China

    Yingzi He

Authors
  1. Huiqian Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingzi He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yusu Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yunfeng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Na Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Huawei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huawei Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yu, H., He, Y., Ni, Y. et al. PORP vs. TORP: a meta-analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270, 3005–3017 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2388-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2388-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation