FATİH MUTLU
(Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz, Baş Boyun Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, İzmit, Kocaeli, Türkiye)
Kasım DURMUŞ
(Babaeski Devlet Hastanesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz, Baş Boyun Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, Kırklareli, Türkiye)
Murat ÖZTÜRK
(Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz, Baş Boyun Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, İzmit, Kocaeli, Türkiye)
Hasan Mervan DEĞER
(Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz, Baş Boyun Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, İzmit, Kocaeli, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2021Cilt: 11Sayı: 2ISSN: 2149-7109 / 2149-6498Sayfa Aralığı: 66 - 72İngilizce

3 0
Comparison of Outcomes of Hearing Reconstruction Techniques for Isolated Incus Long Process Defects
Background: Different techniques are available for ossicular reconstruction in isolated incus defects. Our objective was to compare hearing reconstruction techniques in Austin–Kartush Group A (incus defect, intact manubrium mallei and mobile stapes are present) ossicular defects. Methods: Patients with isolated incus long process defect whose hearing impairment was reconstructed and followed-up for 12 months were reviewed. The hearing outcomes of bone-cement manubrio-stapedioplasty, bone-cement incudostapedopexy, and partial ossicular replacement prosthesis techniques were compared. Results: In the study, 49 ears of patients aged between 10 and 53 years (median 30) who underwent ossiculoplasty between June 2017 and July 2018 were included. All groups had statistically significant improvement in both air-conduction thresholds (ACT) and closure of the air-bone gap (ABG). There was no deterioration in bone-conduction thresholds (BCT) in any frequency. When the success rates of the groups were compared, there was no statistical difference. Conclusion: In patients with a defective incus, intact manubrium mallei, and mobile stapes, high success rates could be achieved with appropriate and careful surgery using all 3 hearing reconstruction methods.
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Gungor V, Atay G, Bajin MD, et al. Comparison of various bone cement ossiculoplasty techniques and functional results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2016;136(9):883-887. [CrossRef]
  • 2. Bartel R, Cruellas F, Hamdan M, et al. Hearing results after type III tympanoplasty: incus transposition versus PORP. A systematic review. Acta Otolaryngol. 2018;138(7):617-620. [CrossRef]
  • 3. Baylancicek S, Iseri M, Topdağ DÖ, et al. Ossicular reconstruction for incus long-process defects: bone cement or partial ossicular replacement prosthesis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(3):468-472. [CrossRef]
  • 4. Demir UL, Karaca S, Ozmen OA, et al. Is it the middle ear disease or the reconstruction material that determines the functional outcome in ossicular chain reconstruction? Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(4):580-585. [CrossRef]
  • 5. Kalcioglu MT, Yalcin MZ, Kilic O, et al. Are long-term auditory results following ossiculoplasty with bone cement as successful as earlymiddle period results? Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102620. [CrossRef]
  • 6. Righini-Grunder F, Häusler R, Chongvisal S, Caversaccio M. Glass ionomer cement in otological microsurgery: experience over 16 years. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(10):2749-2754. [CrossRef]
  • 7. Austin D.F. Ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1972;5(1):145-160. [CrossRef]
  • 8. Kartush J.M. Ossicular chain reconstruction: capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1994;27(4):689-715. [CrossRef]
  • 9. Sennaroglu L, Gungor V, Atay G, Ozer S. Manubrio-stapedioplasty: new surgical technique for malleus and incus fixation due to tympanosclerosis. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129(6):587-590. [CrossRef]
  • 10. Gurgel RK, Jackler RK, Dobie RA, Popelka GR. A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147(5):803-807. [CrossRef]
  • 11. Oghalai JS, Jackler RK. New web-based tool for generating scattergrams to report hearing results. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(5):419. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Moon IS, Song MH, Kim HN, et al. Hearing results after ossiculoplasty using Polycel prosthesis. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127(1):20-24. [CrossRef]
  • 13. Kim HC, Yoo MH, Kang WS, Ahn JH, Chung JW. Factors influencing hearing outcomes after Ossiculoplasty using Polycel ® prosthesis in patients with chronic otitis media. J Audiol Otol. 2010;14(2):88-93.
  • 14. Galy-Bernadoy C, Akkari M, Mondain M, Uziel A, Venail F. Electrocoagulation improving bone cement use in middle-ear surgery: shortterm and middle-term results. J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130(12):1110- 1114. [CrossRef]
  • 15. Hamilton JW. Systematic preservation of the ossicular chain in cholesteatoma surgery using a fiber-guided laser. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(7):1104-1108. [CrossRef]
  • 16. Kum RO, Kulacoglu S. Effects of glass ionomer cement on facial nerve: a clinical and histopathologic evaluation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017;137(8):814-817. [CrossRef]
  • 17. Iurato S, Marioni G, Onofri M. Hearing results of ossiculoplasty in Austin-Kartush group A patients. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22(2):140-144. [CrossRef]

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.