Table 7. Literature review, conclusions.
| Author | Prosthesis | Conclusions |
| Our case series. | MatriX Titanium Stapes Prosthesis | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The gain in VA is better in the group with MatriX prostheses at 250 Hz. |
| mAXIS Titanium Stapes Prosthesis | ||
| Faramarzi et al. (2020) | Fluoroplastic Causse Loop Piston | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The gain in VA is better in the group with Teflon prostheses at 250-500-1000 Hz. |
| Big Easy Piston | ||
| Faramarzi et al. (2021) | Fluoroplastic Causse Loop Piston | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The closure of ABG is better in the group with titanium prostheses at 250 Hz. |
| MatriX Stapes Prosthesis Titanium | ||
| Faramarzi et al. (2017) | Fluoroplastic Causse Loop Piston | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The closure of ABG is better in the group with Teflon prostheses at 250-500 Hz. |
| Titanium Soft-clip Piston | ||
| Tange and Grolman | K-piston Titanium Prosthesis | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. |
| CliP-piston a`Wengen Titanium | ||
| Hornung et al. (2009) | Titanium Soft-clip Piston | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. |
| CliP-piston a`Wengen Titanium Prosthesis | ||
| Canu et al. (2017) | NiTiBOND Stapes Prosthesis | The closure of the average ABG and the percentage of ABGs <15 dB and <10 dB was significantly better in the group with Nitinol prostheses compared to the groups with Teflon prostheses and the group with titanium prostheses (first prosthesis). Similar results were obtained when comparing the two groups with titanium prostheses. |
| Fluoroplastic Piston | ||
| First Titanium Prosthesis | ||
| Last Titanium Prosthesis | ||
| Odat et al. (2021) | K-piston Titanium prosthesis/Titanium Soft-clip Piston | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The success rate (ABG < 10 dB) was higher for the group with fluoroplastic prostheses. |
| Fluoroplastic Piston | ||
| Huber et al. (2014) | NiTiBOND Stapes Prosthesis | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. |
| SMart Nitinol Piston Prosthesis | ||
| Tange et al. (1998) | Golden Piston | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The gold prosthesis is heavier and provides greater gain in the low and mid-frequency range, while the titanium one is lighter and offers greater gain in the high-frequency range. |
| K-piston Titanium prosthesis | ||
| Mangham CA et al (2008a). | The Schuknecht Teflon-wire Piston | 'The average ABG of the Wengen prosthesis is significantly greater than the average ABG of the Schuknecht prosthesis. The results of both the Wengen and Robinson prostheses are significantly worse compared to those of the Schuknecht prosthesis. Short-term efficacy is lower in the groups with Wengen and Robinson prostheses compared to the other prostheses. |
| De La Cruz Teflon-Platinum Wire Piston | ||
| Mangham Teflon-Platinum Double-fold Piston | ||
| CliP-piston a`Wengen Titanium Prosthesis | ||
| Teflon Robinson Piston | ||
| Potena et al. (2015) | Portmann Clip Piston Stainless Steel/Fluoroplastic | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The average gain of the ABG is better in the group with steel and Teflon prostheses. |
| Titanium Soft-clip Piston | ||
| Schrotzlmair et al. | NiTiBOND Stapes Prosthesis | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. In approximately one-third of the patients in the Wengen prosthesis group, postoperative ABG was better compared to the groups with Nitinol and titanium prostheses (Wengen), where only 5% and 10%, respectively, showed ABG closure but not sufficient. |
| K-piston Titanium Prosthesis | ||
| CliP-piston a`Wengen Titanium Prosthesis | ||
| Harris and Gong (2007) | SMart Nitinol Piston Prosthesis | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. |
| Richards-Gyrus Conventional Stainless Steel/Platinum Ribbon Teflon Piston Prosthesis | ||
| Mangham CA (2008b) | Platinum Teflon Double-loop Piston (0,5 mm) |
The average ABG for the 0.6 mm Teflon piston is significantly smaller compared to the 0.6 mm Titanium piston and the 0.5 mm Teflon piston at both 2 months and 1 year post-surgery. The ABG for the 0.6 mm Teflon piston is significantly smaller at 500 Hz, with a trend towards a smaller ABG at 4000 Hz. The average ABG for the Titanium piston in a small window is significantly lower than that observed when the window is larger. The Titanium piston appears to provide significantly worse results compared to the Teflon piston at both 2 months and 1 year post-surgery. |
| Platinum Teflon Double-loop Piston (0,6 mm) | ||
| CliP-piston a`Wengen Titanium Prosthesis | ||
| Rajan et al. (2005) | Nitinol Stapes Piston Prosthesis | No statistically significant difference (ABG and average gain) between the prostheses. The average postoperative reduction in conductive hearing loss is better in the Nitinol prosthesis group, but not significant. However, the interindividual variation in postoperative reduction of conductive hearing loss is significantly lower in the Nitinol prosthesis group. |
| Titanium Prosthesis |