Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:48:39.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-term results of total ossicular chain reconstruction using autografts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

T. R. Kapur  and
S. Jayaramchandran
T. R. Kapur*
Affiliation:
Stoke-on-Trent
S. Jayaramchandran
Affiliation:
Stoke-on-Trent
*
Mr T. R. Kapur, Consultant ENT Surgeon, North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Princes Road, Hartshill, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs 5T4 7LN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The long-term results of 63 total ossicular chain reconstructions using autografts is presented. The follow-up period ranged from 18 months to 18 years with an average of 8.5 years. The primary aims of the study were firstly to assess the long-term success rate and to find out if there were any hitherto unknown causes of bone graft failure. In the event, it was found that the recently described anatomical variation of the oval window viz., the deep oval window, was the prime cause of failure in 32 per cent of unsuccessful cases. Some measures to help to mitigate this problem, are suggested. The result were assessed on the basis of:

1. A minimum gain of 20 dB HL in air conduction (Technical success). The success rate was 55.5 per cent.

2. Patients benefited using Smyth and Patterson's criteria in conjunction with the Glasgow Benefit Plot; 54 percent of the patients benefited significantly.

Keywords

Middle ear implantOssicular replacement prosthesis
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 106 , Issue 8 , August 1992 , pp. 688 - 691
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, D. F. (1971) Ossicular reconstruction. Archives of Otolaryngology, 94: 525–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, G. G., Gatehouse, S., Swan, I. R. C. (1991)The Glasgow Benefit Plot. A new method for reporting benefits from middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope, 101: 180–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekvall, L. (1973) Total middle ear reconstruction. Acta Otolaryngica, 75: 279–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, G. C., Glasscock, M. E., Schwarber, M. K., Nissen, A. J.Christiansen, S. G., Smith, P. G. (1983) Ossicular chain reconstruction: TORP and PORP in chronic ear disease. Laryngoscope, 93: 981–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapur, T. R. (1991) The deep oval window. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 105: 721–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapur, T. R. (1991) The fate of bone grafts in deep oval windows. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 105: 725–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheehy, J. L. (1985). Personal experience with TORPs and PORPs. The American Journal of Otology, 6: 80–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Silverstein, H., McDaniel, A. B., Lichtenstein, R. (1986) A comparison of PORP, TORP and incus homograft for ossicular reconstruction in chronic ear surgery. Laryngoscope, 96: 159–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smyth, G. D. L., Patterson, C. C., (1985) Results of middle ear reconstruction: Do patients and surgeons agree? The American Journal of Otology, 6: 276–279.Google ScholarPubMed
Toner, J. G., Smyth, G. D. L., Kerr, A. G. (1991). Realities in ossiculoplasty. The Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 105: 529–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tos, M. (1974) Late results in Tympanoplasty. Archives of Otolaryngology, 100: 302–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed