Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 7, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Endoscopic Ossiculoplasty – Techniques, Innovations, and Practical Guidance for Clinical Integration
Published on: January 26, 2024
Endoscopic transcanal management of incus long process defects: rebridging with bone cement versus incus
Waleed Moneir1, Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem1, Ahmed Hemdan2
1Department of Otolaryngology, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, El-gomhoria street, Mansoura, Egypt.
Objectives:
to compare hearing outcomes between endoscopic transcanal rebridging with bone cement and endoscopic transcanal incus interposition in patients with incus long process defects secondary to chronic suppurative otitis media (inactive mucosal type).
Methods:
This retrospective study was performed on 83 ears of 83 consecutive patients with incus long process defects secondary to chronic suppurative otitis media (inactive mucosal type). According to the extent of incus long process erosion and subsequent ossiculoplasty technique, patients were divided into 2 groups. Patients in group 1 had erosion involving up to two thirds of the length of the incus long process and underwent endoscopic transcanal rebridging with bone cement. Patients in group 2 had erosion involving more than two thirds of the length of the incus long process and underwent endoscopic transcanal incus interposition.
Results:
Hearing gain (mean ± standard deviation) was 21.39 ± 2.15 dB in group 1 and 19.71 ± 6.12 dB in group 2. A significantly greater hearing gain was achieved in bone cement group than in incus interposition group (P value < 0.001). Successful hearing outcome (post-operative air bone gap closure within 20 dB) was achieved in 81.6% and 71.1% of patients of group 1 and group 2 respectively.
Conclusion:
Endoscopic transcanal rebridging with bone cement offers greater hearing gain than endoscopic transcanal incus interposition. The two techniques remain reliable and cost-effective techniques in management of patients with incus long process defects. The main limitation of this study was the short follow-up period. Further studies with relatively long-term follow-up are strongly recommended.
