Stapedectomy Outcomes: Titanium versus Teflon Wire Prosthesis

• Published in: The Laryngoscope 2005-02, Vol.115 (2), p.249-252
• Main Authors: Massey, Becky L., Kennedy, Richard J., Shelton, Clough
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Bone Wires; Ear, auditive nerve, cochleovestibular tract, facial nerve: diseases, semeiology; Female; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Non tumoral diseases; otology; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; otosclerosis; Otosclerosis - surgery; Prostheses; Prostheses and Implants; Retrospective Studies; stapedectomy; Stapes Surgery - instrumentation; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0023-852X; 1531-4995
• DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000154727.85539.76

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of two stapes prostheses in hearing improvement of patients undergoing stapes surgery for otosclerosis. Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Methods: Titanium and Teflon wire stapes prostheses were compared with regard to effectiveness in closing the air‐bone gap. The charts of 461 stapedectomies performed by one surgeon from 1996 to 2001 were reviewed. Patients who underwent stapedectomy for reasons other than otosclerosis, revision cases, and those with inadequate preoperative or postoperative bone‐conduction threshold data were excluded. Small fenestra technique using either laser or drill was used for all patients. Inclusion criteria were met by 218 patients. Patients were then grouped according to type of prosthesis used, and hearing outcomes were compared. Measured outcomes were four frequency air‐bone gap closure, pure‐tone threshold, and rate of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Results: The study group was comprised of 35 titanium and 183 Teflon wire prostheses. Closure of the air‐bone gap to less than 10 dB was achieved in 86% of the patients with Teflon prosthesis compared with 71% of those with titanium prostheses. The groups were equivalent in regard to site of otosclerotic disease as well as technique, laser or drill, used to create the fenestra. Rate of SNHL was low for both groups and not significantly different. Conclusions: Both prostheses provided comparable results, although the Teflon platinum wire prosthesis was slightly superior. The smaller numbers in the titanium group may confound these results. The design of the titanium prosthesis provides a crimp that is circumferential around the incus, and that prosthesis was selected in cases with a narrow incus. The selection bias may also influence the results seen in this study.