Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Brain Sciences logoLink to Brain Sciences
. 2023 Oct 19;13(10):1476. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13101476

Extrusion and Dislocation in Titanium Middle Ear Prostheses: A Literature Review

Pietro Canzi 1,2, Elena Carlotto 2,*, Luca Bruschini 3, Domenico Minervini 2, Mario Mosconi 1,4, Laura Caliogna 4, Ilaria Ottoboni 2, Cesare Chiapperini 2, Francesco Lazzerini 3, Francesca Forli 3, Stefano Berrettini 3, Marco Benazzo 1,2
Editor: Dietmar Basta
PMCID: PMC10605711  PMID: 37891843

Abstract

Titanium middle ear (ME) prostheses are widely used in surgical practice due to their acoustic properties. However, they present a significant drawback shared by all synthetic materials currently in use for ME reconstruction: they can be rejected by the organism of the host. In this study, we aim to review the current literature on titanium partial ossicular replacement prostheses (PORPs) and total ossicular replacement prostheses (TORPs) extrusion and dislocation. Eighty articles were analysed after a full article review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common indication for reconstruction was chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma. The average extrusion or dislocation rate was 5.2%, ranging from 0 to 35%. The average improvements in the air–bone gap were 12.1 dB (1.6 dB to 25.1 dB) and 13.8 (−0.5 dB to 22.7 dB) for the PORP and TORP groups, respectively. The data reported on this topic are highly variable, demonstrating that functional outcomes are difficult to predict in clinical practice. We believe that the current limitations could be overcome with technological developments, including bioengineering research focused on promoting prosthesis adaptation to the ME environment.

Keywords: middle ear, ossicular replacement prosthesis, titanium, extrusion, dislocation, complication, hearing

1. Introduction

The restoration of hearing conduction entwined within the eradication of middle ear (ME) pathologies represents an outstanding goal of modern otosurgery. Ossiculoplasty (OPL) is a surgical technique employed to restore conductive hearing loss by replacing the defective ossicular chain, of which the history dates back to the 1950s. Several materials and techniques have been adopted over the years for ossicular reconstruction, with varying degrees of success. When available, autologous material refashioned to provide customized interposition is the prime source of repair because of the high biocompatibility [1]. The most commonly used autograft material has been the reshaped incus body, although its usage is limited by the lack of availability in diseased ME, the risk of residual cholesteatoma, and the possible fixation to the walls of the ME. Until 1987, homograft implants processed from cadavers were in use and then abandoned due to the potential risk of infection [2]. Nowadays, bioengineering products from decellularized banked cortical bone are being explored [3]. In the last three decades, many alloplastic materials have been tested as suitable ossicular replacements, such as metals, ceramics, and plastics [2]. Depending on the defects to be reconstructed, synthetic prostheses are distinguished between partial ossicular replacement prostheses (PORPs), mounted on the intact stapes, and total ossicular replacement prostheses (TORPs) for cases with no stapes superstructure [4].

Since the 1990s to date, technologies that bypass the ME sound-conducting mechanism have spread within the market [5,6]; however, passive ME implants continue to be widely used and studied. At present, titanium is widely being used for its physical properties, being lightweight with high stiffness and allowing for easy individual adaptation to anatomical variations. Moreover, it is safe during magnetic resonance imaging both at 1.5 and 3 tesla, which could be necessary for the depiction of recuring cholesteatomas [7]. In current literature, numerous studies focus on the hearing outcomes with titanium prostheses, demonstrating the reliably of this material in restoring the conduction mechanism [8,9]. In a recent meta-analysis, Kortebein et al. reported a rate of 70.7% PORP and 57.1% TORP patients with a postoperative ABG less than 20 dB [8]. Otherwise, in our opinion, the rate of complications to be expected represents a notable aspect of presurgical counselling, of which the available data are controversial.

We aim to review existing literature about the complications of titanium prosthesis ossicular reconstruction, with particular regard to extrusion and dislocation, and discuss the current clinical perspectives.

2. Materials and Methods

A search of the literature was performed using the PUBMED database. The strategy used was based on the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines. The research was conducted using the following keywords: “((TORP) OR (PORP) OR (ossicular replacement) OR (ossiculoplasty)) AND titanium”. The search was conducted in June 2023. The population of interest was patients who had undergone ossiculoplasty with titanium PORP or TORP. There was no limitation in age, sex, or follow-up periods. The studies also had to include data about complications, namely prosthesis extrusion or dislocation. Only articles in English were included. Review articles, letters, editorials, and case reports were omitted. The exclusion criteria also applied to animal research and cadaver studies. In the included articles, we considered postoperative improvement in the air–bone gap (ABG) as a secondary outcome. Two reviewers performed study selection independently and screened all the retrieved titles and abstracts. The differences in assessment for analysis were resolved with assistance from a third assessor. A final selection of the articles for granular analysis was then made by the-above-mentioned two reviewers. The data extraction was performed by four authors. The extracted data were recorded in pre-developed tables in MS Excel and Word.

3. Results

A PRISMA flow chart illustrating both the search numbers and included studies is schematically presented in Figure 1. A total of 311 records were identified. However, after excluding articles written in languages other than English, editorials, letters to editors, case reports, and reviews, 243 studies were considered. A preliminary selection was based on titles and abstracts: 127 papers were evaluated for a full-text review, of which 42 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 5 additional records were excluded because the full text was unavailable. Eighty articles were included in the review and were further analysed. The selected articles covered 7117 subjects and 7214 ME implants, including 3554 PORPs and 3660 TORPs. The demographic characteristics are displayed in Table 1. In six studies, the average age was less than 18 years. The most common indication for reconstruction was chronic otitis media (5829 cases, 80.8% of the total sample), with mention of cholesteatoma in 2462 cases (42.2%). The surgical details and functional outcomes are shown in Table 2. The complication rate is claimed to be 0% in 18 articles. The average extrusion or dislocation rate was 5.2%, ranging from 0 to 35%. Considering the six articles in which the average age was less than 18 years, the extrusion or dislocation rate in this limited cohort was 13.7%. The onset of complications is mentioned in only 16 articles, ranging from 2 months to 8 years. The mean follow-up time was less than or equal to 12 months in 30 studies, among which 24.8% of the complications were reported. Their management is cited in 33 articles and surgical revision is reported for 219 cases. Regarding technical details, the presence or absence of cartilage interposition between the prosthesis and the tympanic membrane is mentioned in 71 articles. When this aspect is addressed, the technique of cartilage interposition is encountered in 92.4% of cases. Prosthesis placements without cartilage protection have been described as a procedural choice for the whole sample in five works. Regarding the staging procedure, in nine articles, the OPL was staged in the whole sample, presenting a complication rate of 6.5%, whereas in 19 works, the OPL was not staged at all, with a complication rate of 2.9%. The average improvement in ABG for PORP was 12.1 dB, ranging from 1.6 dB to 25.1 dB. The average change in ABG for TORP was 13.8 (from −0.5 dB to 22.7 dB).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA 2020-based flow diagram showing the review search.

Table 1.

Demographics and clinical data.

Authors, Year Pts Ears PORP TORP Age at Surgery (Range) Middle Ear Disorder
Wang et al., 1999 [10] 113 124 86 38 n.a. 59 CCOM, 54 COM, 2 CA, 9 TS
Dalchow et al., 2001 [11] 1304 1304 647 657 5–82 y 1304 COM + CCOM
Krueger et al., 2002 [12] 31 31 16 15 n.a. 31 CCOM + COM
Hillman and Shelton, 2003 [13] 53 53 30 23 34.8 y n.a.
Ho et al., 2003 [14] 25 25 14 11 45 y (14–74) 15 CCOM, 6 COM, 4 CA
Neff et al., 2003 [15] 18 18 0 18 37 y (8–80) 11 CCOM, 7 COM + TS
Neumann et al., 2003 [16] 59 61 27 34 36 y (7–81) 32 CCOM, 11 COM, 16 AT, 2 TS
Fisch et al., 2004 [17] 46 46 0 46 44.8 y (22–65) 19 CCOM, 20 COM, 7 CA + TR
Gardner et al., 2004 [18] 149 149 111 38 32.5 y (3–75) 77 CCOM, 40 COM, 32 n.a.
Martin et al., 2004 [19] 68 68 30 38 39 y (6–74) 68 CCOM + COM
Menéndez-Colino et al., 2004 [20] 23 23 0 23 37 y (8–65) 17 CCOM, 3 COM, 1 AT, 2 CA
Lehnerdt et al., 2005 [21] 15 15 14 1 12 y (n.a.) 15 CCOM + COM
De Vos et al., 2006 [22] 129 140 65 75 37 y (3–73) 72 CCOM, 12 COM, 17 AT, 16 TS, 23 n.a.
Vassbotn et al., 2006 [23] 71 73 38 35 31.5 y 40 CCOM, 4 COM. 29 CA
Schmerber et al., 2006 [24] 111 111 61 50 38.4 y (7–76) 82 CCOM, 16 COM, 4 AT, 5 CA, 1 OTO, 3 TR
Hales et al., 2007 [25] 34 34 24 10 26 y (4–59) 29 CCOM, 5 n.a.
Siddiq and Raut, 2007 [26] 33 33 20 13 35.9 y (7–64) 15 CCOM, 18 COM
Truy et al., 2007 [27] 62 62 27 35 37.5 y (n.a.) 38 CCOM, 24 n.a.
Coffey et al., 2008 [9] 80 80 29 51 28.8 y (n.a.) 35 CCOM, 36 COM, 3 CA, 4 OTO, 2 TR
Michael et al., 2008 [28] 14 14 9 5 11 y (7–14) 6 CCOM, 4 COM, 3 AT, 1 n.a.
Redaelli de Zinis, 2008 [29] 26 26 12. 14. 49 y (17–78) 26 CCOM
Alaani and Raut, 2009 [30] 97 97 65 32 39.6 y (5–75) 40 CCOM, 10 COM, 38 AT, 9 n.a.
Colletti et al., 2009 [31] 19 19 0 19 50 y (19–76) 19 COM
Roth et al., 2009 [32] 54 54 32 22 34 y (6–74) 36 CCOM, 9 COM, 4 CA, 5 TR
Woods et al., 2009 [33] 70 70 40 30 34.1 y (11–76) 33 CCOM, 12 COM, 10 AT, 15 n.a.
Fong et al., 2010 [34] 51 51 34 17 38 y (7–69) 20 CCOM, 31 COM
Inũiguez-Cuadra et al., 2010 [35] 85 94 0 94 n.a. n.a.
Luers et al., 2010 [36] 70 70 0 70 43.6 y (6–66) 40 CCOM, 30 COM
Praetorius et al., 2010 [37] 14 14 14 0 50.4 y (13–74) 14 CCOM
Quesnel et al., 2010 [38] 74 74 27 47 11.3 y (n.a.) n.a.
Yung and Smith, 2010 [39] 49 49 19 30 44 y (n.a.) 14 CCOM, 35 COM
Babighian and Albu, 2011 [40] 125 125 0 125 43.7 (n.a.) 125 CCOM
Beutner et al., 2011 [4] 18 18 18 0 44.4 y (8–69) 12 CCOM, 6 COM
Quaranta et al., 2011 [38] 57 57 19 38 38 y (6–67) 57 CCOM
Mardassi et al., 2011 [41] 70 70 37 33 43 y (5–77) 47 CCOM, 23 COM
Nevoux et al., 2011 [42] 114 116 0 116 9.8 y (n.a) 116 CCOM
Gostian et al., 2013 [43] 12 12 0 12 42 y (9–73) 8 CCOM, 4 COM
Hess-Erga et al., 2013 [44] 76 76 44 32 33 y (6–78) 40 CCOM, 5 COM, 31 TR
Meulemans et al., 2013 [45] 83 89 89 0 n.a. (7–85) 51 CCOM, 21 COM, 17 n.a.
Shah et al., 2013 [46] 19 19 15 4 14–50 y (n.a.) 19 CCOM + COM
Birk et al., 2014 [47] 60 62 62 0 38 y (4–83) n.a.
Fayad et al., 2014 [48] 62 62 0 62 38.4 y (3–82) 60 COM, 2 n.a.
Órfão et al., 2014 [49] 43 43 26 17 39 y (7–70) 14 CCOM, 17 COM, 12 n.a.
Pringle et al., 2014 [50] 73 73 36 37 32.9 y (6–64) n.a.
Baker et al., 2015 [51] 79 83 56 27 37.3 y (6–79) 74 CCOM + COM, 9 n.a.
Boleas-Aguirre et al., 2015 [52] 16 16 0 16 56 y (57–40) 8 CCOM + COM, 5 TS, 3 OTO
Lee et al., 2015 [53] 27 27 18 9 54 y (14–76) 17 CCOM, 10 COM
Ocak et al., 2015 [54] 18 18 8 10 35.2 y (13–57) 18 CCOM + COM
Roux et al., 2015 [55] 68 68 32 36 34.5 y (13–56) 68 CCOM
Wolter et al., 2015 [56] 71 75 0 75 14.3 y (7–18) 66 CCOM, 2 CA, 7 n.a.
Faramarzi et al., 2016 [57] 45 45 0 45 n.a. 10 CCOM, 3 COM, 11 TS, 21 n.a.
Gostian et al., 2016 [58] 47 47 47 0 43 y (7–73) 17 CCOM, 30 COM
Gostian et al., 2016 [59] 42 42 0 42 42.8 y (6–78) 26 CCOM, 16 COM
O’Connell et al., 2016 [60] 149 149 56 93 30.1 y (n.a.) 80 CCOM, 69 COM
Amith and Rs, 2017 [61] 20 20 20 0 25 y (12–52) 10 CCOM, 10 COM
Govil et al., 2017 [62] 101 101 47 54 9.8 y (3.4–17.3) n.a.
McMullen et al., 2017 [63] 71 71 23 48 26 y (6–73) n.a.
Mulazimoglu et al., 2017 [64] 126 126 126 0 37 y (7–72) 86 CCOM, 11 COM, 11 TR, 3 TS, 2 TU, 13 n.a.
Choi and Shin, 2018 [65] 45 45 20 25 n.a. 45 CCOM + COM
Kahue et al., 2018 [66] 130 130 130 0 36 y (n.a.) 121 COM, 9 TR
Kong et al., 2017 [67] 20 20 9 11 49 y (n.a.) n.a.
Kumar et al., 2017 [68] 37 37 31 6 31.6 y (13–48) 37 CCOM + COM
Lahlou et al., 2018 [69] 256 280 163 117 44 y (17–74) 125 CCOM, 85 COM, 40 AT, 4 CA, 11 OTO, 12 TR, 3 TU
Saliba et al., 2018 [70] 158 158 0 158 29.7 y (n.a.) 103 CCOM, 25 COM, 19 CA, 11 n.a.
Gu and Chi, 2019 [71] 206 206 134 72 46 y (12–70) 206 CCOM + COM
Haidar et al., 2019 [72] 129 133 88 45 33 y (7–74) 34 COM, 10 AT, 24 GR, 65 n.a.
Potsangbam and Akoijam, 2019 [1] 20 20 14 6 30 y (8–64) 20 CCOM
Wood et al., 2019 [73] 153 153 0 153 40 y (6–89) 120 CCOM, 10 COM, 23 n.a.
Mantsopoulos et al., 2021 [74] 274 274 274 0 38 y (6–67) 168 CCOM, 62 COM, 37 TS, 6 TR, 1 TU
Baazil et al., 2022 [75] 106 106 0 106 35 y (6.6–75.3) 105 CCOM + COM, 1 CA
Bahmad and Perdigão, 2022 [76] 13 13 0 13 44 y (n.a.) 7 CCOM, 6 COM
Kraus et al., 2022 [77] 36 38 38 0 40.4 y (6–81) 18 CCOM, 20 COM
Park et al., 2022 [78] 135 135 86 49 n.a. 94 CCOM, 41 COM
Plichta et al., 2022 [79] 24 24 12 12 38.33 y (4–62) 24 TR
Van Hoolst et al., 2022 [80] 99 113 0 113 n.a. (8–87) 74 CCOM, 15 COM, 24 CA
Chien et al., 2023 [81] 8 8 8 0 n.a. (27–48) 8 TR
Faramarzi et al., 2023 [82] 248 248 115 133 33 y (n.a.) 248 CCOM + COM + TS
Gülşen and Çıkrıkcı, 2023 [83] 21 21 0 21 n.a. (28–44) 21 TS
Kálmán et al., 2023 [84] 130 130 84 46 n.a. 130 CCOM + COM
Kim et al., 2023 [85] 130 130 78 52 49.2 y (n.a.) 71 CCOM, 59 COM
Open in a new tab

Number of patients (pts), when not specified, it is assumed to be the same number of ears; years (y); not available (n.a.); chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma (CCOM); chronic otitis media without cholesteatoma (COM); atelectasis (AT); congenital abnormalities (CA); otosclerosis (OTO); traumatic injuries (TR); tympanosclerosis (TS); tumours (TU).

Table 2.

Surgical details and functional outcomes.

Authors, Year Surgery Cartilage Staging Pre-op ABG Post-op ABG Extrusions and Dislocations/Ears (%) Onset Treatment Follow-Up
PORP TORP PORP TORP
Wang et al., 1999 [10] 11 CWD, 48 CWU, 65 OPL 124 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2/124 (1.6%) n.a. n.a. 12–46 mo
Dalchow et al., 2001 [11] n.a. 1304 1100 n.a. n.a. 14 15 29/1304 (2.2%) n.a. n.a. 6–72 mo
Krueger et al., 2002 [12] n.a. 31 n.a. n.a. n.a. 14.1 n.a. 0/31 (0%) / / 16 mo–2 y
Hillman and Shelton, 2003 [13] n.a. 53 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2/53 (3.8%) 12 mo surgical 3 mo–n.a.
Ho et al., 2003 [14] 9 CDW, 15 CWU, 1 OPL 19 20 38.7 42.8 18.1 21.5 1/25 (4%) n.a. surgical 6 mo
Neff et al., 2003 [15] 16 OPL, 2 n.a. 18 6 n.a. 33.9 n.a. 16.9 0/18 (0%) / / 8 mo
Neumann et al., 2003 [16] n.a. 61 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0/61 (0%) / / 38 mo
Fisch et al., 2004 [17] 21 CWD, 25 CWU 0 46 / 41.9 / 20.7 0/46 (0%) / / 1–7 y
Gardner et al., 2004 [18] 13 CWD,68 CWU, 21 OPL, 47 n.a. 149 13 26 40 18.8 21.7 1/149 (0.7%) n.a. n.a. 1.5 y
Martin et al., 2004 [19] 14 CWD, 7 CWU, 47 OPL 68 4 34 34 17 25 1/68 (1.5%) n.a. surgical 3 mo–2.5 y
Menéndez-Colino et al., 2004 [20] 16 CWD, 7 CWU 23 0 / n.a. / n.a. 0/23 (0%) / / 18 mo
Lehnerdt et al., 2005 [21] n.a. 15 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1/15 (6.6%) n.a. n.a. 6 mo
De Vos et al., 2006 [22] 8 CWD, 65 CWU, 67 OPL 140 24 32.7 42.5 18.1 19.8 11/140 (7.9%) 22 mo surgical 11.8 mo
Vassbotn et al., 2006 [23] 20 CWD, 53 CWU 73 0 28 38 9 19 4/73 (5.5%) n.a. 2 surgical, 2 n.a. 14.2 mo
Schmerber et al., 2006 [24] 18 CWD, 93 CWU 92 65 n.a. n.a. 15 26.5 14/111 (12.6%) 1: 17 mo, 1: 20 mo, 12 n.a. 13 surgical, 1 refused 20.5 mo
Hales et al., 2007 [25] 4 CWD, 30 CWU 34 34 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2/34 (5.9%) n.a. n.a. 19 mo
Siddiq and Raut, 2007 [26] 5 CWD, 14 CWU, 14 n.a. 33 n.a. 25.1 23.3 15.3 13.4 0/33 (0%) / / 6–18 mo
Truy et al., 2007 [27] n.a. 62 n.a. 30.9 28 19.4 18.3 2/62 (3.2%) 2 mo surgical 12 mo
Coffey et al., 2008 [9] 22 CDW, 22 CWU, 30 OPL 80 34 n.a. n.a. 14.3 16.0 3/80 (3.8%) n.a. n.a. 14.9 mo
Michael et al., 2008 [28] 7 CWD, 3 CWU, 4 OPL 14 7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0/14 (0%) / / 12 mo
Redaelli de Zinis, 2008 [29] 26 CWD 26 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0/26 (0%) / / 12 mo
Alaani and Raut, 2009 [30] 57 CWD, 40 CWU + OPL 97 29 26.3 32.1 10.6 14.8 2/97 (2.1%) 1 y 1 surgical, 1 n.a. 1 y
Colletti et al., 2009 [31] 19 CWU 19 n.a. / 40.7 / 21.5 3/19 (15.8%) n.a. 2 surgical, 1 n.a. 36 mo
Roth et al., 2009 [32] 11 CWD, 27 CWU, 16 OPL 54 29 31.0 38.2 13.3 16.4 1/54 (1.8%) / surgical 1–5 y
Woods et al., 2009 [33] n.a. 70 3 32.2 39.2 26.9 29.2 11/70 (15.7%) n.a. n.a. 6 mo
Fong et al., 2010 [34] 4 CWD, 47 CWU 51 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1/51 (2%) n.a. n.a. 12 mo
Inũiguez-Cuadra et al., 2010 [35] 56 CWD, 38 CWU 94 n.a. / 23.8 / 15.4 8/94 (8.5%) n.a. n.a. 38 mo
Luers et al., 2010 [36] 33 CWD, 37 CWU 70 0 / 33.9 / 19.7 0/70 (0%) / / 2 mo
Praetorius et al., 2010 [37] n.a. 14 n.a. 26.6 / 15.2 / 0/14 (0%) / / 8 mo
Quesnel et al., 2010 [38] n.a. 74 49 30.2 36.6 20.8 22 7/74 (9.5%) n.a. n.a. 33 mo
Yung and Smith, 2010 [39] n.a. 49 7 29.2 32.5 16.2 20.7 8/49 (16.3%) n.a. n.a. 2 y
Babighian and Albu, 2011 [40] 125 CWD 125 125 / 44.9 / 22.3 2/125 (1.6%) n.a. n.a. 12 mo
Beutner et al., 2011 [4] 11 CWD, 7 CWU n.a. 0 26.8 / 18.2 / 0/18 (0%) / / 6 mo
Quaranta et al., 2011 [38] 57 CWU 0 57 36.7 45.3 24.1 27.2 6/57 (10.5%) n.a. surgical 24 mo
Mardassi et al., 2011 [41] 70 CWU + OPL 70 24 27.2 32.8 15 19.5 4/70 (5.7%) n.a. surgical 9.8 mo
Nevoux et al., 2011 [42] 116 CWU 116 116 / 41 / 22.4 17/116 (14.7%) 2:1 y, 6:2 y, 5:5 y, 1:>5 y, 3:n.a. surgical 34 mo
Gostian et al., 2013 [43] 1 CWD, 11 CWU 12 n.a. / 26.6 / 18.8 0/12 (0%) / / 32 mo
Hess-Erga et al., 2013 [44] 31 OPL, 40 n.a. 76 n.a. 28 37 15 20 4/76 (5%) <1 y 2 surgical, 2 conservative 5.2 y
Meulemans et al., 2013 [45] 7 CWD, 65 CWU, 17 OPL 89 0 26.2 / 15.6 / 3/89 (3.4%) / surgical 13 mo
Shah et al., 2013 [46] 19 CWU 19 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0/19 (0%) / / 11.1 y
Birk et al., 2014 [47] n.a. n.a. n.a. 26.9 / 15.4 / 1/62 (1.6%) n.a. n.a. 7 mo
Fayad et al., 2014 [48] 8 CWD, 21 CWU, 30 OPL, 3 n.a. 62 23 / 35.1 / 18 1/62 (1.6%) 1 y n.a. 21.7 mo
Órfão et al., 2014 [49] 1 CWD, 11 CWU, 31 OPL 43 0 32.8 37.1 21.9 25.7 1/43 (2%) n.a. n.a. 20 mo
Pringle et al., 2014 [50] 9 CWD, 47 CWU, 17 OPL 0 52 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5/73 (6.8%) n.a. surgical 6–96 mo
Baker et al., 2015 [51] n.a. 83 38 28.2 30.3 16.5 20.6 5/83 (6.0%) n.a. surgical 41.8 mo
Boleas-Aguirre et al., 2015 [52] 2 CWD, 2 CWU, 12 OPL 16 n.a. / 34 / 16.4 0/16 (0%) / / 12 mo
Lee et al., 2015 [53] 15 CWD, 11 CWU, 1 OPL n.a. n.a. 23 28 12 15 0/27 (0%) / / 6 mo
Ocak et al., 2015 [54] 15 CWU, 3 OPL 16 n.a. 33.7 38 8.6 19 1/18 (5.5%) 12 mo n.a. 38.5 mo
Roux et al., 2015 [55] 68 CWU 68 19 23.5 31 19.5 26 0/68 (0%) / / 23 mo
Wolter et al., 2015 [56] n.a. 75 n.a. / 44 / 30 1/75 (1.3%) 3.9 y surgical 2.7 y
Faramarzi et al., 2016 [57] 45 OPL n.a. 45 / 36 / 24.7 2/45 (4.4%) n.a. n.a. 6–12 mo
Gostian et al., 2016 [58] 15 CWD, 32 CWU 47 n.a. 25.7 n.a. 16.8 n.a. 3/47 (6.4%) n.a. 1 n.a., 2 surgery 6.5 y
Gostian et al., 2016 [59] 18 CWD, 24 CWU 42 0 / 33 / 22 3/42 (7.1%) 6 mo surgical 6.8 y
O’Connell et al., 2016 [60] n.a. 149 77 30.9 37.9 17.6 21.8 5/149 (3.2%) n.a. surgical 51.6 mo
Amith and Rs, 2017 [61] 3 OPL, 17 n.a. 20 3 44.4 / 31.3 / 3/20 (15%) n.a. n.a. 12 mo
Govil et al., 2017 [62] n.a. 89 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 29/101 (29%) 1.3 y surgical 2.2 y
McMullen et al., 2017 [63] n.a. 71 50 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2/71 (2.8%) 8 mo, n.a. 1 conservative, 1 surgical 10.2 mo
Mulazimoglu et al., 2017 [64] 33 OPL, 93 n.a. 0 33 / 28.2 / 22.3 30/126 (23.8%) 26 mo 12 surgical, 18 n.a. 4.5 y
Choi and Shin, 2018 [65] n.a. 45 8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2/45 (4.4%) / / 12 mo
Kahue et al., 2018 [66] 5 CWD, 77 CWU, 48 OPL 130 10 29 / 18 / 3/130 (2.3%) 25 mo surgical 37 mo
Kong et al., 2017 [67] n.a. 20 n.a. 27.6 28.5 26 29 4/20 (20%) n.a. n.a. 27 mo
Kumar et al., 2017 [68] n.a. 37 0 32.1 37.5 26.3 21.6 1/37 (2.7%) n.a. n.a. 6 mo
Lahlou et al., 2018 [69] 46 CWD, 74 CWU, 160 OPL 280 0 26 30 15 20 17/280 (6.1%) n.a. surgical 12 mo
Saliba et al., 2018 [70] 36 CWD, 122 CWU 158 62 / 38 / 26.3 24/158 (15%) n.a. surgical 18 mo
Gu and Chi, 2019 [71] 206 CWD n.a. 0 27.8 28 16.4 18.4 2/206 (1.0%) / / 30 mo
Haidar et al., 2019 [72] 133 CWU 133 8 29.6 33.3 12.9 18.7 5/133 (2.3%) n.a. n.a. 6 mo
Potsangbam and Akoijam, 2019 [1] 20 OPL 20 20 37.1 40.3 17.6 22.5 7/20 (35%) 4–8 y n.a. 3 y
Wood et al., 2019 [73] 24 CWD, 114 CWU, 15 OPL 152 14 / 37.5 / 24.9 2/153 (1.3%) n.a. surgical 44 mo
Mantsopoulos et al., 2021 [74] n.a. n.a. n.a. 22.7 / 15.7 / 8/274 (2.9%) n.a. n.a. 4 mo
Baazil et al., 2022 [75] 3 CWD, 33 CWU, 70 OPL 0 74 / 38.1 / 27.6 8/106 (7.5%) n.a. n.a. 11.7 mo
Bahmad and Perdigão, 2022 [76] 13 CWD n.a. n.a. / 35.1 / 20.7 0/13 (0%) / / 6 mo
Kraus et al., 2022 [77] n.a. 7 0 21.8 / 10.5 / 2/38 (5.3%) n.a. n.a. 1–9 y
Park et al., 2022 [78] 113 CWD, 22 CWU 135 0 28.1 28.1 18.4 23.5 1/135 (0.7%) n.a. n.a. 8.1 mo
Plichta et al., 2022 [79] 24 OPL 24 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1/24 (4.1%) n.a. surgical 24 mo
Van Hoolst et al., 2022 [80] 28 CWD, 23 OPL, 62 n.a. 113 n.a. / 32.7 / 21.7 17/113 (15.0%) n.a. surgical 39 mo
Chien et al., 2023 [81] 8 OPL n.a. 0 25.9 / 10.8 / 0/8 (0%) / / 3.58 mo
Faramarzi et al., 2023 [82] 248 OPL n.a. 248 34 37.6 21.2 24.6 7/248 (2.8%) n.a. n.a. 12.5 mo
Gülşen and Çıkrıkcı, 2023 [83] 21 OPL 21 0 / 37.1 / 14.5 1/21 (4.8%) n.a. surgical 12 mo
Kálmán et al., 2023 [84] n.a. 130 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11/130 (8.5%) n.a. surgical 8.8 mo
Kim et al., 2023 [85] 130 OPL 130 130 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10/130 (7.7%) n.a. n.a. 22.7 mo
Open in a new tab

Canal wall down (CWD); canal wall up (CWU); ossiculoplasty (OPL); years (y); months (mo); not available (n.a.). Data included in the column “surgery” refer to the procedure performed at the time of the ME implant positioning, regardless of any previous surgery. In the column “cartilage”, we included the case in which cartilage interposition between the prosthesis and the tympanic membrane was cited. In the column “staging”, we reported, when available, the number of ossicular reconstruction performed in a second-stage procedure. In the columns “preoperative ABG (pre-op ABG)” and “postoperative ABG (post-op ABG)”, n.a. indicates that this outcome is not mentioned or audiometric results differentiated between the PORP and TORP groups are not available. “Extrusions and dislocations/ears (%)”: we excluded extrusions and dislocations caused by cholesteatomas. The data included in the columns “Onset” and “Treatment” refer to the time of appearance and management of complications. “Follow-up” indicates the average follow-up or, when not available, its range.

4. Discussion

OPL is a well-established surgical procedure intended for auditory rehabilitation; however, its practical use collides with some technical issues still today. An ideal OPL prosthesis should ensure hearing restoration, along with being safe and stably integrated into surrounding tissues. Titanium has proven to be a reliable material in terms of easy surgical manipulation and functional hearing results [8]. However, it is not free of postoperative complications, such as dislocation or extrusion, along with non-titanium prostheses [39]. Unfortunately, the literature regarding titanium complication rates is often conflicting. We strongly believe the fragility of evidence about this topic could hinder both the therapeutic choice and the preoperative counselling. To our knowledge, this is the first work that specifically analyses the existing data about titanium TORP and PORP extrusion and dislocation rates. In their review, Kortebein and colleagues have addressed this issue. However, they focused on articles presenting at least one audiometric outcome, with a 12-month minimum follow-up, thus limiting the available data about complications [8]. On the other hand, with the present work, we provided a comprehensive overview of this topic, considering functional auditory data in the background. We considered the rate of extrusion and dislocation for combined PORPs and TORPs because only a few articles report complications separated for the two cohorts. Our literature review has demonstrated that the reported extrusion and dislocation rates vary greatly in literature, ranging from 0 to 35%, distributed over variable follow-up time. Interestingly, 24.8% of the overall complications occurred in studies with a mean follow-up time of less than or equal to 12 months. Only a few studies reported the onset time, thus allowing for a limited discussion about this topic. The only remark which deserves to be underlined is the considerable variability of these findings, ranging from 2 months to 8 years. The evaluation focused on the six paediatric studies disclosed an increased complication rate in this cohort (13.7%) when compared to the overall results (5.2%). Unfortunately, in the studies reporting cohorts composed of both adults and children, the age of patients who underwent extrusion or dislocation is not specified, precluding a fair comparison of complication rates by age. However, we can speculate, as suggested by Michael and colleagues, that the higher frequency of eustachian tube dysfunction and air way inflammation in the pediatric population could explain the greatest incidence of complications [28]. On the other hand, the exiguity of details about the circumstances in which complications have occurred hampers a proper correlation with possible influencing factors, such as ME pathologies, surgical procedures or the staging of treatment. Regarding surgical techniques, the staging procedure could be expected to ensure a more stable ME environment and limit complications. However, our data did not reflect this trend, confirming that many variables are involved in functional results. Furthermore, many authors claim that a piece of cartilage should be placed between the head of the titanium prosthesis and the tympanic membrane in order to prevent extrusion and ameliorate acoustic transfer [41,42]. The supporters of this technique believe that the use of cartilage would enhance the adaptation of the prosthesis to the inclination of the tympanic membrane, minimize recurrence of tympanic retraction, and avoid inflammatory reaction due to direct contact with the metal. On the other hand, according to other studies, the cartilage interposition is not essential [17,50]. In our systemic review, prosthesis placement without cartilage protection have been described as procedural choice for the whole sample in five articles, declaring an extrusion rate of 0%, 6.8%, 7.5%, 10%, and 23.8%, respectively (see Table 2). These data are overwhelming to interpret, even considering that the reported extrusion or dislocation rate was 0% in 18 articles overall. It can be argued that the complete absence of complication sounds unrealistic. This number is almost certainly under-reported, or the follow-up interval was too short (less than or equal to 12 months in 10 of these studies). In addition, in our analysis, we considered the preoperative and postoperative ABG as a secondary outcome, despite the presence of these data not being among the inclusion criteria. Our findings are in agreement with those of Kortebein et al., who reported an ABG improvement of 12.1 and 16.7 dB after titanium PORP and TORP placement, respectively [8]. We disclosed a high variability in the average ABG improvement among the studies included in the present review. It should be noted that the data presented in literature are widely heterogeneous and thus difficult to compare with respect to titanium prostheses models, underlying ME diseases, surgical hands and techniques, and follow-up strategies. The information about extrusions and dislocations treatment is limited; however, we found a trend in favour of a surgical revision attempt. Unfortunately, the available data do not allow to trace any cases eventually managed with other rehabilitation strategies, such as active ME prostheses. The average ABG improvement was 12.1 dB, ranging from 1.6 dB to 25.1 dB, for the PORP group, and 13.8 dB, from −0.5 dB to 22.7 dB, for the TORP group. The functional results depend on many factors, including the status of the ME environment and eustachian tube dysfunction. According to our review, the most common indication for ossicular reconstruction is represented by chronic otitis media. Indeed, recurrence or progression of the ME pathology can affect the OPL outcomes. Furthermore, patients should be aware that despite their satisfying audiologic results, titanium PORPs and TORPs present the technical limitations shared by all passive ME prostheses. Namely, they aim to restore a normal coupling between the tympanic membrane and the inner ear, thus allowing for a non-reinforced transmission of incident sound waves [86]. In fact, they entail certain anatomical and functional prerequisites that limit their use to selected situations [4]. Currently, active ME prostheses, as well as percutaneous or transcutaneous bone conduction implants, have been designed to overcome the abovementioned issues [4,5]. Nevertheless, these solutions imply higher costs and the discomfort of an external component. All in all, current technological developments place us on the horns of a dilemma: whether to shelve the experience of titanium prostheses or strive to overcome their ME adaptability and functional limits, perhaps with bioengineering tools?

5. Conclusions

Here, we present a comprehensive literature review focused on titanium TORP and PORP extrusion and dislocation. We believe that the variability in the reported complication rates demonstrates that the factors involved in determining the prosthesis’ adaptability in ME are highly changeable and difficult to predict. In our opinion, these considerations should be an integral part of preoperatory counselling. Moreover, we advocate that further research that using current technology could overcome the existing limits of titanium ME PORPs and TORPs to exploit their advantage in clinical practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.C.; Methodology, E.C., L.B. and P.C.; Validation, M.M. and F.F.; Formal Analysis, P.C. and E.C.; Investigation, E.C., D.M., C.C., I.O., M.M. and L.C.; Data Curation, E.C., C.C., I.O., D.M., F.L. and F.F.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, E.C.; Writing—Review and Editing, P.C.; Visualization, L.B.; Supervision, S.B. and M.B.; Project Administration, P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Potsangbam D.S., Akoijam B.A. Endoscopic transcanal autologous cartilage ossiculoplasty. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019;71:54–59. doi: 10.1007/s12070-018-1518-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mudhol R.S., Naragund A.I., Shruthi V.S. Ossiculoplasty: Revisited. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2013;65((Suppl. S3)):451–454. doi: 10.1007/s12070-011-0472-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Milazzo M., Danti S., Inglese F., Jansen van Vuuren G., Gramigna V., Bonsignori G., De Vito A., Bruschini L., Stefanini C., Berrettini S. Ossicular replacement prostheses from banked bone with ergonomic and functional geometry. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2017;105:2495–2506. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Beutner D., Hüttenbrink K.B. Passive and active middle ear implants. GMS Curr. Top. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2009;8:Doc09. doi: 10.3205/cto000061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Canzi P., Avato I., Beltrame M., Bianchin G., Perotti M., Tribi L., Gioia B., Aprile F., Malpede S., Scribante A., et al. Retrosigmoidal placement of an active transcutaneous bone conduction implant: Surgical and audiological perspectives in a multicentre study. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2021;41:91–99. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-N0609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Canzi P., Berrettini S., Albera A., Barbara M., Bruschini L., Canale A., Carlotto E., Covelli E., Cuda D., Dispenza F., et al. Current trends on subtotal petrosectomy with cochlear implantation in recalcitrant chronic middle ear disorders. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2023;43:S67–S75. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-suppl.1-43-2023-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Martin A.D., Driscoll C.L., Wood C.P., Felmlee J.P. Safety evaluation of titanium middle ear prostheses at 3.0 tesla. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2005;132:537–542. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kortebein S., Russomando A.C., Greda D., Cooper M., Ledbetter L., Kaylie D. Ossicular chain reconstruction with titanium prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Otol. Neurotol. 2023;44:107–114. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Coffey C.S., Lee F., Lambert P.R. Titanium versus nontitanium prostheses in ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:1650–1658. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31817bd807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang X., Song J., Wang H. Results of tympanoplasty with titanium prostheses. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1999;121:606–609. doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(99)70066-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dalchow C.V., Grün D., Stupp H.F. Reconstruction of the ossicular chain with titanium implants. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2001;125:628–630. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2001.120397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Krueger W.W., Feghali J.G., Shelton C., Green J.D., Beatty C.W., Wilson D.F., Thedinger B.S., Barrs D.M., McElveen J.T. Preliminary ossiculoplasty results using the Kurz titanium prostheses. Otol. Neurotol. 2002;23:836–839. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200211000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hillman T.A., Shelton C. Ossicular chain reconstruction: Titanium versus plastipore. Laryngoscope. 2003;113:1731–1735. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200310000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ho S.Y., Battista R.A., Wiet R.J. Early results with titanium ossicular implants. Otol. Neurotol. 2003;24:149–152. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200303000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Neff B.A., Rizer F.M., Schuring A.G., Lippy W.H. Tympano-ossiculoplasty utilizing the Spiggle and Theis titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis. Laryngoscope. 2003;113:1525–1529. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200309000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Neumann A., Schultz-Coulon H.J., Jahnke K. Type III tympanoplasty applying the palisade cartilage technique: A study of 61 cases. Otol. Neurotol. 2003;24:33–37. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200301000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fisch U., May J., Linder T., Naumann I.C. A new L-shaped titanium prosthesis for total reconstruction of the ossicular chain. Otol. Neurotol. 2004;25:891–902. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200411000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gardner E.K., Jackson C.G., Kaylie D.M. Results with titanium ossicular reconstruction prostheses. Laryngoscope. 2004;114:65–70. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200401000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Martin A.D., Harner S.G. Ossicular reconstruction with titanium prosthesis. Laryngoscope. 2004;114:61–64. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200401000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Menéndez-Colino L.M., Bernal-Sprekelsen M., Alobid I., Traserra-Coderch J. Preliminary functional results of tympanoplasty with titanium prostheses. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2004;131:17–19. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lehnerdt G., Van Delden A., Lautermann J. Management of an “Ear Camp” for children in Namibia. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69:663–668. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.De Vos C., Gersdorff M., Gérard J.M. Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty. Otol. Neurotol. 2006;28:61–67. doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000231598.33585.8f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Vassbotn F.S., Møller P., Silvola J. Short-term results using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2007;264:21–25. doi: 10.1007/s00405-006-0149-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Schmerber S., Troussier J., Dumas G., Lavieille J.P., Nguyen D.Q. Hearing results with the titanium ossicular replacement prostheses. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2006;263:347–354. doi: 10.1007/s00405-005-1002-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hales N.W., Shakir F.A., Saunders J.E. Titanium middle ear prostheses in staged ossiculoplasty: Does mass really matter? Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2007;28:164–167. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2006.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Siddiq M.A., Raut V.V. Early results of titanium ossiculoplasty using the Kurz titanium prosthesis—A UK perspective. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2007;121:539–544. doi: 10.1017/S0022215106003999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Truy E., Naiman A.N., Pavillon C., Abedipour D., Lina-Granade G., Rabilloud M. Hydroxyapatite versus titanium ossiculoplasty. Otol. Neurotol. 2007;28:492–498. doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000265203.92743.d1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Michael P., Fong J., Raut V. Kurz titanium prostheses in paediatric ossiculoplasty- short term results. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72:1329–1333. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Redaelli De Zinis L.O. Titanium vs hydroxyapatite ossiculoplasty in canal wall down mastoidectomy. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2008;134:1283–1287. doi: 10.1001/archotol.134.12.1283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alaani A., Raut V.V. Kurz titanium prosthesis ossiculoplasty—Follow-up statistical analysis of factors affecting one year hearing results. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2010;37:150–154. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2009.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Colletti V., Carner M., Colletti L. TORP vs round window implant for hearing restoration of patients with extensive ossicular chain defect. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009;129:449–452. doi: 10.1080/00016480802642070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Roth J.A., Pandit S.R., Soma M., Kertesz T.R. Ossicular chain reconstruction with a titanium prosthesis. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2009;123:1082–1086. doi: 10.1017/S0022215109990375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Woods O., Fata E.l., Saliba I. Ossicular reconstruction: Incus versus universal titanium prosthesis. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2009;36:387–392. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2008.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fong J.C., Michael P., Raut V. Titanium versus autograft ossiculoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;130:554–558. doi: 10.3109/00016480903338131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Iñiguez-Cuadra R., Alobid I., Borés-Domenech A., Menéndez-Colino L.M., Caballero-Borrego M., Bernal-Sprekelsen M. Type III tympanoplasty with titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis: Anatomic and functional results. Otol. Neurotol. 2010;31:409–414. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181cc04b5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Luers J.C., Huttenbrink K.B., Mickenhagen A., Beutner D. A modified prosthesis head for middle ear titanium implants- experimental and first clinical results. Otol. Neurotol. 2010;31:624–629. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d2f04e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Praetorius M., Kirchenbauer S.S., Buss S., Klingmann C., Plinkert P.K., Baumann I. First experiences with a new adjustable length titanium ossicular prosthesis (ALTO) Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;130:1237–1241. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2010.490238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Quesnel S., Teissier N., Viala P., Couloigner V., Van Den Abbeele T. Long term results of ossiculoplasties with partial and total titanium Vario Kurz prostheses in children. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:1226–1229. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yung M., Smith P. Titanium versus nontitanium ossicular prostheses-a randomized controlled study of the medium-term outcome. Otol. Neurotol. 2010;31:752–758. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181de4937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Babighian G., Albu S. Stabilising total ossicular replacement prosthesis for ossiculoplasty with an absent malleus in canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy—A randomised controlled study. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2011;36:543–549. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2011.02406.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mardassi A., Deveze A., Sanjuan M., Mancini J., Parikh B., Elbedeiwy A., Magnan J., Lavieille J.P. Titanium ossicular chain replacement prostheses: Prognostic factors and preliminary functional results. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2011;128:53–58. doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2010.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nevoux J., Moya-Plana A., Chauvin P., Denoyelle F., Garabedian E.N. Total ossiculoplasty in children: Predictive factors and long-term follow-up. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2011;137:1240–1246. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2011.204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gostian A.O., Pazen D., Luers J.C., Huttenbrink K.B., Beutner D. Titanium ball joint total ossicular replacement prosthesis—Experimental evaluation and midterm clinical results. Hear. Res. 2013;301:100–104. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hess-Erga J., Møller P., Vassbotn F.S. Long-term hearing result using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2013;270:1817–1821. doi: 10.1007/s00405-012-2218-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Meulemans J., Wuyts F.L., Forton G.E. Middle ear reconstruction using the titanium Kurz Variac partial ossicular replacement prosthesis: Functional results. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:1017–1025. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.4751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shah K.D., Bradoo R.A., Joshi A.A., Sapkale D.D. The efficiency of titanium middle ear prosthesis in ossicular chain reconstruction: Our experience. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2013;65:298–301. doi: 10.1007/s12070-011-0373-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Birk S., Brase C., Hornung J. Experience with the use of a partial ossicular replacement prosthesis with a ball-and-socket joint between the plate and the shaft. Otol. Neurotol. 2014;35:1248–1250. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Fayad J.N., Ursick J., Brackmann D.E., Friedman R.A. Total ossiculoplasty: Short- and long- term results using a titanium prosthesis with footplate shoe. Otol. Neurotol. 2014;35:108–113. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182a475ac. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Órfão T., Júlio S., Ramos J.F., Dias C.C., Silveira H., Santos M. Audiometric outcome comparison between titanium prosthesis and molded autologous material. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014;151:315–320. doi: 10.1177/0194599814533074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pringle M.B., Sunkaraneni V.S., Tann N. Is cartilage interposition required for ossiculoplasty with titanium prostheses? Otol. Neurotol. 2014;35:482–488. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31829e169b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Baker A.B., O’Connell B.P., Nguyen S.A., Lambert P.R. Ossiculoplasty with titanium prostheses in patients with intact stapes: Comparison of TORP versus PORP. Otol. Neurotol. 2015;36:1676–1682. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Boleas-Aguirre M.S., Ruiz de Erenchun-Lasa I., Bulnes-Plano M.D. Audiological results after total ossicular reconstruction for stapes fixation. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2015;272:3123–3130. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3303-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lee J.I., Yoo S.H., Lee C.W., Song C.l., Yoo M.H., Park H.J. Short-term hearing results using ossicular replacement prostheses of hydroxyapatite versus titanium. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2015;272:2731–2735. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3274-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ocak E., Beton S., Meço C., Dursun G. Titanium versus Hydroxyapatite prostheses: Comparison of hearing and anatomical outcomes after ossicular chain reconstruction. Turk. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;53:15–18. doi: 10.5152/tao.2015.775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Roux A., Bakhos D., Villeneuve A., Hermann R., Suy P., Lescanne E., Truy E. Does checking the placement of ossicular prostheses via the posterior tympanotomy improve hearing results after cholesteatoma surgery? Otol. Neurotol. 2015;36:1499–1503. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Wolter N.E., Holler T., Cushing S.L., Chadha N.K., Gordon K.A., James A.L., Papsin B.C. Pediatric ossiculoplasty with titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:740–745. doi: 10.1002/lary.24896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Faramarzi M., Jahangiri R., Roosta S. Comparison of Titanium vs. Polycel total ossicular replacement prosthesis. Iran. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;28:89–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gostian A.O., Kouame J.M., Bremke M., Ortmann M., Hüttenbrink K.B., Beutner D. Long term results of the titanium clip prosthesis. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2016;273:4257–4266. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4174-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gostian A.O., Kouamé J.M., Bremke M., Ortmann M., Hüttenbrink K.B., Beutner D. Long-term results of the cartilage shoe technique to anchor a titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis on the stapes footplate after type III tympanoplasty. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016;142:1094–1099. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.2118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.O’Connell B.P., Rizk H.G., Hutchinson T., Nguyen S.A., Lambert P.R. Long-term outcomes of titanium ossiculoplasty in chronic otitis media. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016;154:1084–1092. doi: 10.1177/0194599816633669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Amith N., Mudhol R.S. Autologous incus versus titanium partial ossicular replacement prosthesis in reconstruction of Austin type A ossicular defects: A prospective randomised clinical trial. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2017;131:391–398. doi: 10.1017/S0022215117000251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Govil N., Kaffenberger T.M., Shaffer A.D., Chi D.H. Factors influencing hearing outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing ossicular chain reconstruction. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;99:60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.05.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.McMullen K.P., Harris M.S., Dodson E.E. Use of 2-Octyl cyanoacrylate in cartilage Interposition adherence during ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2017;127:731–734. doi: 10.1002/lary.26125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mulazimoglu S., Saxby A., Schlegel C., Linder T. Titanium incus interposition ossiculoplasty: Audiological outcomes and extrusion rates. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2017;274:3303–3310. doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4634-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Choi Y.S., Shin S.O. Results of hearing outcome according to the alloplastic ossicular prosthesis materials. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018;70:184–187. doi: 10.1007/s12070-015-0952-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kahue C.N., O’Connnell B.P., Dedmon M.M., Haynes D.S., Rivas A. Short and Long-Term Outcomes of Titanium Clip Ossiculoplasty. Otol. Neurotol. 2018;39:e453–e460. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kong J., Jeong C., Shim M., Kim W., Yeo S., Park S. Comparative study of new autologous material, bone-cartilage composite graft, for ossiculoplasty with Polycel® and Titanium. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2018;43:434–439. doi: 10.1111/coa.12987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kumar S., Yadav K., Ojha T., Sharma A., Singhal A., Gakhar S. To evaluate and compare the result of ossiculoplasty using different types of graft materials and prosthesis in cases of ossicular discontinuity in chronic suppurative otitis media cases. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018;70:15–21. doi: 10.1007/s12070-017-1184-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lahlou G., Sonji G., De Seta D., Mosnier I., Russo F.Y., Sterkers O., Bernardeschi D. Anatomical and functional results of ossiculoplasty using titanium prosthesis. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2018;38:377–383. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Saliba I., Sabbah V., Poirier J.B. Total ossicular replacement prosthesis: A new fat interposition technique. Clin. Med. Insights Ear Nose Throat. 2018;11:117955061774961. doi: 10.1177/1179550617749614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gu F.M., Chi F.L. Titanium ossicular chain reconstruction in single stage canal wall down tympanoplasty for chronic otitis media with mucosa defect. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2019;40:205–208. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2018.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Haidar H., Altamimi Z.A.R., Larem A., Aslam W., Elsaadi A., Abdulkarim H., Al Duhirat E., Mahmood A.N., Alqahtani A. The benefit of trans-attic endoscopic control of ossicular prosthesis after cholesteatoma surgery. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:2754–2759. doi: 10.1002/lary.27848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Wood C.B., Yawn R., Lowery A.S., O’Connell B.P., Haynes D., Wanna G.B. Long-term hearing outcomes following total ossicular reconstruction with titanium prostheses. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019;161:123–129. doi: 10.1177/0194599819831284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Mantsopoulos K., Thimsen V., Taha L., Eisenhut F., Müller S.K., Sievert M., Iro H., Hornung J. Comparative analysis of titanium clip prostheses for partial ossiculoplasty. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2021;42:103062. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Baazil A.H.A., Ebbens F.A., Van Spronsen E., De Wolf M.J.F., Dikkers F.G. Comparison of long-term microscopic and endoscopic audiologic results after total ossicular replacement prosthesis surgery. Otol. Neurotol. 2022;43:1189–1195. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Bahmad F., Perdigão A.G. Titanium prostheses versus stapes columella type 3 tympanoplasty: A comparative prospective study. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;88:562–569. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.07.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Kraus E.M., Russell G.B., Allen S.J., Pearson S.A. Long-term hearing results of endoskeletal ossicular reconstruction in chronic ears using titanium prostheses having a helical coil: Part 1—Kraus K-Helix Crown, incus to stapes. Otol. Neurotol. 2022;43:1056–1064. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Park S., Lim K.H., Lim S.J., Park D.H., Rah Y.C., Choi J. Functional outcomes of single-stage ossiculoplasty in chronic otitis media with or without cholesteatoma. J. Int. Adv. Otol. 2022;18:415–419. doi: 10.5152/iao.2022.21360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Plichta L., Dabkowska A., Wawszczyk-Frohlich S., Skarzynski H., Skarzynski P.H. Titanium prostheses for treating posttraumatic ossicular chain disruption. J. Int. Adv. Otol. 2022;18:411–414. doi: 10.5152/iao.2022.21369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Van Hoolst A., Wuyts F.L., Forton G.E.J. Total ossicular chain reconstruction using a titanium prosthesis: Functional results. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2022;279:5615–5621. doi: 10.1007/s00405-022-07415-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Chien C., Tai S., Chan L.P., Wang H.M., Chang N.C., Wang L.F., Ho K.Y., Li K.H. Predictive factors and audiometric outcome comparison between titanium prosthesis and autologous incus in traumatic ossicular injury. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2023:34894231181746. doi: 10.1177/00034894231181746. Epub ahead of print . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Faramarzi M., Roosta S., Faramarzi A., Kherad M. Comparison of partial vs. total ossicular chain reconstruction using titanium prosthesis: A retrospective cohort study. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2023;280:3567–3575. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-07849-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Gülşen S. A novel technique in treatment of advanced tympanosclerosis: Results of malleus replacement and loop prostheses combination; pure endoscopic transcanal approach. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2023;280:3601–3608. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-07861-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Kálmán J., Horváth T., Dános K., Tamás L., Polony G. Primary ossiculoplasties provide better hearing results than revisions: A retrospective cohort study. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2023;280:3177–3185. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-07835-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Kim H., Ha J., Choo O.S., Park H., Choung Y.H. Which is better for ossiculoplasty following tympanomastoidectomy: Polycel® or Titanium? Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2023;132:34894231159969. doi: 10.1177/00034894231159969. Epub ahead of print . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Sanna M., Hiroshi S., Mancini F., Russo A., Taibah A., Falcioni M. Middle Ear and Mastoid Microsurgery. Thieme; Stuttgart, Germany: 2018. pp. 187–244. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Brain Sciences are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES