z-logo
Premium
Partial ossicular reconstruction in children: A review of 62 operations
Author(s) -
Daniels Robert L.,
Rizer Franklin M.,
Schuring Arnold G.,
Lippy William L.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1097/00005537-199811000-00016
Subject(s) - computer science , audiology , medicine
Objective/Hypothesis: The published experience and audiometric results with ossicular reconstruction in children are limited. To better understand the role of ossiculoplasty in children, audiometric results were examined for partial ossicular reconstructions performed on a pediatric population. Study Design: Retrospective. Methods: Sixty‐two partial ossicular reconstructions performed on a pediatric population were reviewed for audiometric results, prosthesis extrusion rates, and mechanisms of failure at revision. Comparison of techniques and prosthesis types: porous polyethylene partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (POP), Schuring ossicle cup (SOC), and modified Robinson prosthesis (MRP) were also evaluated. Follow‐up ranged from 6 to 72 months. Results: Six‐month hearing results showed postoperative air‐bone gaps less than or equal to 20 dB in 77% of cases. Successful results at 1 and 2 years were retained in 66% and 63% of cases, respectively. Results for POPs at 1 and 2 years were 78% and 89%. Results for SOCs at 1 and 2 years were 61% and 55%. The overall extrusion rate was approximately 3%. Conclusions: These results compare favorably with those from other, mostly adult, studies. Comparison of prosthesis types revealed generally stable long‐term results with few significant differences. Success with ossiculoplasty in children can be obtained by applying the same principles and approach to ossicular reconstruction as used in adults. Ossicular reconstruction in children remains a secondary goal after establishing a safe, dry, and stable ear. A discussion of techniques and comparative literature review are presented. Laryngoscope , 108:1674–1681, 1998

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here