Prospective cohort comparison of bioactive glass implants and conchal cartilage in reconstruction of the posterior canal wall during tympanomastoidectomy.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of bioactive glass implants and conchal cartilage in reconstructing the posterior canal wall during tympanomastoidectomy.


METHODS
Prospective cohort clinical study.


METHODS
Teaching hospital.


METHODS
Patients with clinically diagnosed chronic suppurative otitis media and cholesteatoma awaiting tympanomastoidectomy were recruited.


METHODS
All patients underwent tympanomastoidectomy by the same surgeon. A first cohort of 12 patients underwent posterior canal wall reconstruction with autogenous conchal cartilage. A second cohort of 12 patients underwent such reconstruction with prefabricated bioactive glass.


METHODS
Primary- All patients underwent out-patient review at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively, after which a second-look procedure was performed. Reconstructions were inspected for evidence of epithelialization, granulation, infection, stenosis, depression and extrusion. Secondary- All patients had perioperative serial pure-tone audiometry to check for any change in hearing levels upto 1 year postoperatively.


RESULTS
By 1 year postoperatively, both reconstructive graft materials showed good epithelialization, no granulation, no infection, no ear canal stenosis, no depression and no extrusion. At operative second-looks, bioactive glass particularly showed good tissue bonding, including both neovascularization and connective tissue integration. Overall clinical outcome was equivalent for both materials. Both graft materials showed no statistically significant difference in postoperative hearing levels.


CONCLUSIONS
Bioactive glass and conchal cartilage showed equivalent clinical outcome in reconstructing the posterior canal wall without significantly affecting hearing levels. As bioactive glass does not require second site morbidity and thus also reduces operative time, we prefer it for reconstructing the posterior canal wall following tympanomastoidectomy.
Abramovich
S
S
Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK. solomon@abramovich.org.uk
Hannan
S A
SA
Huins
C T
CT
Georgalas
C
C
McGuinness
J
J
Vats
A
A
Thompson
I
I
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D002648:Child; D018424:Cholesteatoma, Middle Ear / Q000601:surgery*; D002908:Chronic Disease; D005260:Female; D005898:Glass; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008416:Mastoid / Q000601:surgery; D008875:Middle Aged; D055171:Nasal Cartilages / Q000637:transplantation*; D010035:Otitis Media, Suppurative / Q000601:surgery*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures; D014182:Transplantation, Autologous; D014420:Turbinates / Q000637:transplantation; D014432:Tympanic Membrane / Q000601:surgery; D055815:Young Adult
D001672:Biocompatible Materials