Table 7.
Literature review of postoperative hearing outcomes in stapes surgery regarding the type of prosthesis
| Author (year) | Types of prosthesis (number) | Duration of follow-up | ABG ≤10 dB (%) | ABG ≤20 dB (%) | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current study | Causse Loop Piston (76) | At least 6 months | 57.5 | 92.5 | Similar results with both prostheses. |
| Big Easy Piston (72) | 59.1 | 94.2 | Causse Loop Piston was moderately better in low frequencies. | ||
|
| |||||
| Faramarzi et al. [18] | Causse Loop Piston (63) | At least 6 months | 36.5 | 80.9 | Similar results with both prostheses. |
| Titanium Soft-Clip (57) | 38.6 | 86 | |||
|
| |||||
| Schrotzlmair [13] | Self -Crimping Nitinol (Thermo Dummy) (21) | 70.7 days | 76.2 | 95.2 | Better ABG closure with Self – Crimping than with Clip Piston àWengen. |
| Titanium K-Piston (28) | 89.6 days | 53.6 | 89.3 | ||
| Clip Piston àWengen(13) | 163.1 days | 23.1 | 69.2 | ||
|
| |||||
| Ying et al. [16] | SMart (Teflon-based Piston Nitinol) (190) | NR* | NR | NR | Revision rate of 11% in the SMart group and 4% in the De La Cruz group. |
| Manual–Crimp Platinum; De La Cruz (145) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Mangham [12] | Platinum Piston (144) | NR | 96 | 100 | No difference in ABG closure. |
| Nitinol–Teflon Piston (44) | 92 | 100 | Nitinol–Teflon group had smaller mean ABG in lower frequencies. | ||
|
| |||||
| Fayad et al. [9] | SMart Piston (306) | 5.6 months | 78.3 | 94.2 | No differences |
| Richards' Platinum Piston (110) | 84.2 | 98.0 | |||
|
| |||||
| Van Rompaey et al. [15] | Teflon (211) | 12 months | Overall 63.6 | Overall 92.6 | No difference |
| Teflon Wire (168) | |||||
| Titanium (112) | |||||
| Clip piston (49) | |||||
| Smart (74) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Huber et al. [10] | Conventional (75) | At least 12 months | 43 | 92 | No difference in ABG closure within 20 dB, but Nitinol was better in ABG closure within 10 dB. |
| Nitinol Smart (75) | 71 | 94 | |||
|
| |||||
| Mangham [11] | Teflon Piston 0.5 mm (74) | 1 year | 85 | NR | Teflon Piston achieved better result than Titanum Clip Piston. |
| Teflon Piston 0.6 mm (74) | 91 | ||||
| Titanium Clip Piston (33) | 84 | ||||
|
| |||||
| Tange and Grolman [14] | Titanium K-piston (63) | NR | 65 | 87.1 | No differences |
| Clip Piston àWengen (63) | 71 | 91 | |||
|
| |||||
| Brown and Gantz [4] | Platinum Wire Piston (39) | 20 months | NR | NR | No differences |
| Nitinol Piston (40) | 9 months | ||||
|
| |||||
| Massey et al. [3] | Kurz Titanium K- Piston (35) | 4 months | 71 | 97.1 | No differences |
| Teflon Platinum Wire (183) | 86 | 97.8 | |||
|
| |||||
| Zepeda-Lopez et al. [17] | Schuknecht Teflon Wire Piston (70) | NR | 57.1 | NR | Fluoroplastic Teflon was better in low frequencies and resulted in better ABG closure in all frequencies. |
| Fluoroplastic Teflon (76) | 93.4 | ||||
*
NR: not reported;
ABG: Air-Bone Gap