We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Validation Studies
Malleus-to-footplate versus malleus-to-stapes-head ossicular reconstruction prostheses: temporal bone pressure gain measurements and clinical audiological data.
Otology & Neurotology 2005 July
HYPOTHESIS: Several clinical reports suggest that if the stapes superstructure is intact, ossicular reconstruction should be made to the stapes head rather than the footplate to achieve a better hearing outcome. To test this hypothesis, we compared the in situ mechanical performance of hydroxylapatite (HA) malleus-to-stapes-head (MSH) ossicular reconstruction prosthesis (ORP) with malleus-to-footplate (MFP) ORP, both manufactured by Project HEAR.
BACKGROUND: ORPs are commonly used to replace a missing or deficient incus. However, hearing outcomes are highly variable, depending on the ORP material, design, surgical technique, and ORP positioning.
METHODS: Cochleo-vestibular pressure measurements in human cadaveric temporal bones for the HA MFP ORP have been reported by Puria et al. (2005). In the present study, the ear canal pressure Pe and cochleovestibular pressure Pv were measured in cadaveric temporal bones with intact incus, removed incus, and MSH ORP reconstruction. The relative loss in gain, Lmsh, is defined as the ratio of Pv with reconstructed MSH ORP to intact incus and compared with Lmfp. A retrospective clinical audit of the pre- and postoperative audiologic results of patients who had undergone ossiculoplasty with either MSH or MFP ORP was conducted for comparison.
RESULTS: For the 0.5 to 3 kHz frequency range, Lmsh magnitude is 6.2 dB lower than the Lmfp magnitude (p = 0.05). The retrospective audit of audiologic results after ossiculoplasty with either MSH or MFP ORP revealed a similar difference in gain between the two ORP designs with air-bone gap differences of 7.6 dB (p = 0.04) and air conduction threshold differences of 8.0 dB (p = 0.13) for these patients.
CONCLUSION: The MFP ORP showed better average pressure gain compared with the MSH ORP across the speech frequencies. Surgeons performing ossiculoplasty with designs similar to Project HEAR HA ORPs, where there is direct columella-like connection between the malleus and stapes, should consider using the MFP ORP design to achieve a better postoperative audiologic result, even when the stapes superstructure is intact.
BACKGROUND: ORPs are commonly used to replace a missing or deficient incus. However, hearing outcomes are highly variable, depending on the ORP material, design, surgical technique, and ORP positioning.
METHODS: Cochleo-vestibular pressure measurements in human cadaveric temporal bones for the HA MFP ORP have been reported by Puria et al. (2005). In the present study, the ear canal pressure Pe and cochleovestibular pressure Pv were measured in cadaveric temporal bones with intact incus, removed incus, and MSH ORP reconstruction. The relative loss in gain, Lmsh, is defined as the ratio of Pv with reconstructed MSH ORP to intact incus and compared with Lmfp. A retrospective clinical audit of the pre- and postoperative audiologic results of patients who had undergone ossiculoplasty with either MSH or MFP ORP was conducted for comparison.
RESULTS: For the 0.5 to 3 kHz frequency range, Lmsh magnitude is 6.2 dB lower than the Lmfp magnitude (p = 0.05). The retrospective audit of audiologic results after ossiculoplasty with either MSH or MFP ORP revealed a similar difference in gain between the two ORP designs with air-bone gap differences of 7.6 dB (p = 0.04) and air conduction threshold differences of 8.0 dB (p = 0.13) for these patients.
CONCLUSION: The MFP ORP showed better average pressure gain compared with the MSH ORP across the speech frequencies. Surgeons performing ossiculoplasty with designs similar to Project HEAR HA ORPs, where there is direct columella-like connection between the malleus and stapes, should consider using the MFP ORP design to achieve a better postoperative audiologic result, even when the stapes superstructure is intact.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app