Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Review

Mechanisms and Prevention Strategies of Prosthesis Extrusion in Ossicular Chain Reconstruction

Wanru Zheng ORCID ,  Zhiqiang Gao ,  Guodong Feng ORCID
    Received: 9 April 2026; Revised: 22 June 2026; Accepted: 20 July 2026; Published: 27 July 2026

    Abstract

    Ossicular chain reconstruction restores sound transmission between the tympanic membrane and the inner ear, but prosthesis extrusion remains an important cause of long-term failure. Its incidence may be underestimated because many studies have limited follow-up. This narrative review summarizes current evidence on the mechanisms and prevention of ossicular prosthesis extrusion. A structured literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Clinical, animal, histopathological, finite element, temporal bone, and in vitro biomaterial studies were reviewed when they addressed prosthesis extrusion, dislocation, interface mechanics, middle ear conditions, or prevention-oriented strategies. Current evidence suggests that prosthesis extrusion is a multifactorial process involving interface mechanical mismatch, reduced dynamic adaptability, altered force transmission, and adverse middle ear conditions. Focal stress concentration at the tympanic membrane-prosthesis interface may contribute to local ischemic or structural injury, although direct clinical proof remains limited. Poor ventilation, chronic inflammation, biofilm formation, fibrosis, and scar contracture may impair tissue repair or disturb prosthesis position, thereby increasing interface instability. Preventive strategies include cartilage interposition, bioactive material or surface modification, dynamically adaptive designs, biomimetic or computationally optimized geometries, and surgical optimization. Cartilage interposition remains the most established clinical approach, whereas bioactive, adaptive, and computationally optimized designs still require long-term validation. Future studies should standardize extrusion and dislocation endpoints and evaluate prostheses that combine interface mechanical compatibility, optimized force transmission, and biological integration.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Norouzi, A.; Guan, X.; Cheng, Y.S. Middle ear mechanics: The science of ossiculoplasty. Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am. 2026, 59, 291–305.
    2. 2. Sanna, M.; Gamoletti, R.; Magnani, M.; et al. Failures with Plasti-Pore ossicular replacement prostheses. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1984, 92, 339–341.
    3. 3. House, J.W.; Teufert, K.B. Extrusion rates and hearing results in ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2001, 125, 135–141.
    4. 4. Vrabec, J.T.; Stierman, K.; Grady, J.J. Hydroxyapatite prosthesis extrusion. Otol. Neurotol. 2002, 23, 653–656.
    5. 5. Ocak, E.; Beton, S.; Meço, C.; et al. Titanium versus hydroxyapatite prostheses: Comparison of hearing and anatomical outcomes after ossicular chain reconstruction. Turk. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015, 53, 15–18.
    6. 6. Canzi, P.; Carlotto, E.; Bruschini, L.; et al. Extrusion and dislocation in titanium middle ear prostheses: A literature review. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 1476.
    7. 7. Kim, H.; Ha, J.; Choo, O.S.; et al. Which is better for ossiculoplasty following tympanomastoidectomy: Polycel® or titanium? Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2023, 132, 1404–1411.
    8. 8. Van Hoolst, A.; Wuyts, F.L.; Forton, G.E.J. Total ossicular chain reconstruction using a titanium prosthesis: Functional results. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2022, 279, 5615–5621.
    9. 9. Nevoux, J.; Moya-Plana, A.; Chauvin, P.; et al. Total ossiculoplasty in children: predictive factors and long-term follow-up. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2011, 137, 1240–1246.
    10. 10. Potsangbam, D.S.; Akoijam, B.A. Endoscopic transcanal autologous cartilage ossiculoplasty. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019, 71, 54–59.
    11. 11. Hüttenbrink, K.B. The mechanics of the middle-ear at static air pressures: The role of the ossicular joints, the function of the middle-ear muscles and the behaviour of stapedial prostheses. Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl. 1988, 451, 1–35.
    12. 12. Koike, T.; Wada, H.; Kobayashi, T. Modeling of the human middle ear using the finite-element method. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 111, 1306–1317.
    13. 13. Gan, R.Z.; Sun, Q.; Feng, B.; et al. Acoustic-structural coupled finite element analysis for sound transmission in human ear—Pressure distributions. Med. Eng. Phys. 2006, 28, 395–404.
    14. 14. Wang, X.; Cheng, T.; Gan, R.Z. Finite-element analysis of middle-ear pressure effects on static and dynamic behavior of human ear. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122, 906–917.
    15. 15. Ferris, P.; Prendergast, P.J. Middle-ear dynamics before and after ossicular replacement. J. Biomech. 2000, 33, 581–590.
    16. 16. Kelly, D.J.; Prendergast, P.J.; Blayney, A.W. The effect of prosthesis design on vibration of the reconstructed ossicular chain: A comparative finite element analysis of four prostheses. Otol. Neurotol. 2003, 24, 11–19.
    17. 17. Zhou, L.; Feng, M.; Huang, X.; et al. Fatigue analysis of tympanic membrane after ossiculoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017, 137, 679–685.
    18. 18. Mohseni-Dargah, M.; Pastras, C.; Mukherjee, P.; et al. Performance of personalised prosthesis under static pressure: Numerical analysis and experimental validation. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2024, 151, 106396.
    19. 19. Park, M.S.; Kim, Y.S. Biomechanical characteristics of the ossicular prostheses model using the finite element method. Korean J. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2003, 46, 641–648. Available online: https://www.kjorl.org/journal/view.php?number=2589 (in Korean)
    20. 20. Gamoletti, R.; Bellomi, A.; Sanna, M.; et al. Histology of extruded Plasti-Pore ossicular prostheses. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1984, 92, 342–345.
    21. 21. Meijer, A.G.; Verheul, J.; Albers, F.W.; et al. Cartilage interposition in ossiculoplasty with hydroxylapatite prostheses: A histopathologic study in the guinea pig. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2002, 111, 364–369.
    22. 22. Schär, M.; Dobrev, I.; Röösli, C.; et al. Effects of preloads on middle-ear transfer function and acoustic reflex in ossiculoplasty with PORP. Hear. Res. 2023, 430, 108709.
    23. 23. Cox, M.D.; Page, J.C.; Trinidade, A.; et al. Long-term complications and surgical failures after ossiculoplasty. Otol. Neurotol. 2017, 38, 1450–1455.
    24. 24. Yung, M. Long-term results of ossiculoplasty: Reasons for surgical failure. Otol. Neurotol. 2006, 27, 20–26.
    25. 25. Nosair, N.; Elzayat, S.; Elsharaby, R.; et al. The association of bacterial biofilm and middle ear mucosa in patients with mucosal chronic suppurative otitis media. Acta Otorrinolaringol. Esp. 2024, 75, 244–251.
    26. 26. Bance, M. Optimizing ossicular prosthesis design and placement. Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 2018, 81, 14–23.
    27. 27. Sadé, J. Atelectatic tympanic membrane: Histologic study. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1993, 102, 712–716.
    28. 28. Barron, C.L.; Kamel-Abusalha, L.B.; Sethia, R.; et al. Identification of essential biofilm proteins in middle ear fluids of otitis media with effusion patients. Laryngoscope 2020, 130, 806–811.
    29. 29. Stenfeldt, K.; Johansson, C.; Hellström, S. The collagen structure of the tympanic membrane: collagen types I, II, and III in the healthy tympanic membrane, during healing of a perforation, and during infection. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2006, 132, 293–298.
    30. 30. Urík, M.; Tedla, M.; Hurník, P. Pathogenesis of retraction pocket of the tympanic membrane—A narrative review. Medicina 2021, 57, 425.
    31. 31. Bhutta, M.F.; Leach, A.J.; Brennan-Jones, C.G. Chronic suppurative otitis media. Lancet 2024, 403, 2339–2348.
    32. 32. Jaryszak, E.M.; Sampson, E.M.; Antonelli, P.J. Effect of ossicular prosthesis biofilms on middle ear scarring and hearing outcomes. Otol. Neurotol. 2009, 30, 1191–1195.
    33. 33. Sophia Fox, A.J.; Bedi, A.; Rodeo, S.A. The basic science of articular cartilage: Structure, composition, and function. Sports Health 2009, 1, 461–468.
    34. 34. Yung, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty: Literature review. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2008, 122, 663–672.
    35. 35. Klacansky, J. Cartilage myringoplasty. Laryngoscope 2009, 119, 2175–2177.
    36. 36. Aarnisalo, A.A.; Cheng, J.T.; Ravicz, M.E.; et al. Motion of the tympanic membrane after cartilage tympanoplasty determined by stroboscopic holography. Hear. Res. 2010, 263, 78–84.
    37. 37. Ulku, C.H.; Cheng, J.T.; Guignard, J.; et al. Comparisons of the mechanics of partial and total ossicular replacement prostheses with cartilage in a cadaveric temporal bone preparation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014, 134, 776–784.
    38. 38. Heermann Jr., J.; Heermann, H.; Kopstein, E. Fascia and cartilage palisade tympanoplasty. Nine years' experience. Arch. Otolaryngol. 1970, 91, 228–241.
    39. 39. Bernal-Sprekelsen, M.; Romaguera Lliso, M.D.; Sanz Gonzalo, J.J. Cartilage palisades in type III tympanoplasty: Anatomic and functional long-term results. Otol. Neurotol. 2003, 24, 38–42.
    40. 40. Kazikdas, K.C.; Onal, K.; Boyraz, I.; et al. Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty for management of subtotal perforations: A comparison with the temporalis fascia technique. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2007, 264, 985–989.
    41. 41. Jeffery, C.C.; Shillington, C.; Andrews, C.; et al. The palisade cartilage tympanoplasty technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2017, 46, 48.
    42. 42. Dornhoffer, J. Cartilage tympanoplasty: Indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope 2003, 113, 1844–1856.
    43. 43. Luers, J.C.; Huttenbrink, K.B.; Mickenhagen, A.; et al. A modified prosthesis head for middle ear titanium implants—Experimental and first clinical results. Otol. Neurotol. 2010, 31, 624–629.
    44. 44. Mancilla Mejía, F.J.; Saenz Medina, J.A.; Vega Alarcon, A.; et al. Sutured cartilage graft for middle ear prosthesis stabilization: A case report. Cureus 2025, 17, e87660.
    45. 45. Meijer, A.G.W.; Segenhout, H.M.; Albers, F.W.J.; et al. Histopathology of biocompatible hydroxylapatite-polyethylene composite in ossiculoplasty. ORL 2002, 64, 173–179.
    46. 46. Miri, Z.; Haugen, H.J.; Loca, D.; et al. Review on the strategies to improve the mechanical strength of highly porous bone bioceramic scaffolds. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2024, 44, 23–42.
    47. 47. Wirsching, K.; Lehle, K.; Jacob, P.; et al. Influence of surface processing on the biocompatibility of titanium. Materials 2011, 4, 1238–1248.
    48. 48. Mosconi, M.; Carlotto, E.; Caliogna, L.; et al. Titanium biohybrid middle ear prostheses: A preliminary in vitro study. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 561.
    49. 49. Fisch, U.; May, J.; Linder, T.; et al. A new L-shaped titanium prosthesis for total reconstruction of the ossicular chain. Otol. Neurotol. 2004, 25, 891–902.
    50. 50. Baazil, A.H.A.; Ebbens, F.A.; van Spronsen, E.; et al. Comparison of long-term microscopic and endoscopic audiologic results after total ossicular replacement prosthesis surgery. Otol. Neurotol. 2022, 43, 1189–1195.
    51. 51. Stoppe, T.; Bornitz, M.; Lasurashvili, N.; et al. Function, applicability, and properties of a novel flexible total ossicular replacement prosthesis with a silicone coated ball and socket joint. Otol. Neurotol. 2018, 39, 739–747.
    52. 52. Beutner, D.; Luers, J.C.; Bornitz, M.; et al. Titanium clip ball joint: A partial ossicular reconstruction prosthesis. Otol. Neurotol. 2011, 32, 646–649.
    53. 53. Bevis, N.; Effertz, T.; Beutner, D. A partial ossicular replacement prosthesis with a concentric ball joint in the headplate. Laryngoscope 2023, 133, 1717–1721.
    54. 54. Bevis, N.; Effertz, T.; Hüser, M.; et al. Partial ossicular reconstruction with a novel ball joint prosthesis: The mCLIP ARC partial prosthesis. Laryngoscope 2024, 134, 3323–3328.
    55. 55. Beutner, D.; Bevis, N.; Arndt, S.; et al. Short-term audiological outcomes of the mCLIP ARC ball joint prosthesis—A retrospective multicenter study. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2025, 282, 5597–5602.
    56. 56. Achena, A.; Pacelli, L.; Prizio, C.; et al. Nitinol prosthesis in stapes surgery: Evolution from heat-activated to superelastic nitinol: A systematic review. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 1069.
    57. 57. Bevis, N.; Schwarz, D.; Pazen, D.; et al. Nitinol in passive ossicular reconstruction—First results from temporal bone experiments. Otol. Neurotol. 2020, 41, e854–e859.
    58. 58. Seivur, S.; Rathnakara, S.H.; Ananthasuresh, G.K. Design of a S-shape middle-ear ossicular replacement prosthesis and its comparison with present-day prostheses using finite element modelling. Sādhanā 2022, 47, 235.
    59. 59. Kamrava, B.; Gerstenhaber, J.A.; Amin, M.; et al. Preliminary model for the design of a custom middle ear prosthesis. Otol. Neurotol. 2017, 38, 839–845.
    60. 60. Sokołowski, J.; Orłowski, A.; Lachowska, M.; et al. 3D-printed custom ossicular prosthesis—Methodology of design and LDV measurements in a cadaver study. Otolaryngol. Pol. 2023, 77, 1–5.
    61. 61. Sokołowski, J.; Orłowski, A.; Bartoszewicz, R.; et al. Quantitative analysis of 3D-printed custom ossicular prostheses motion using laser Doppler vibrometry. Otolaryngol. Pol. 2024, 77, 23–30.
    62. 62. Mohseni-Dargah, M.; Pastras, C.; Mukherjee, P.; et al. Enhancing ossicular chain reconstruction through finite element analysis and advanced additive manufacturing: A review. Bioprinting 2024, 38, e00328.
    63. 63. Milazzo, M.; Muyshondt, P.G.G.; Carstensen, J.; et al. De novo topology optimization of total ossicular replacement prostheses. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 103, 103541.
    64. 64. Asakura, T.; Ozono, K.; Ichino, T.; et al. Genetic algorithm-based optimization of columella shape with FEM surrogate modeling: Convergence analysis and application to ossicular chain reconstruction. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2026, 25, 31.
    65. 65. Hirsch, J.D.; Vincent, R.L.; Eisenman, D.J. Surgical reconstruction of the ossicular chain with custom 3D printed ossicular prosthesis. 3D Print. Med. 2017, 3, 7.
    66. 66. Heikkinen, A.K.; Lähde, S.; Rissanen, V.; et al. Feasibility of 3D-printed middle ear prostheses in partial ossicular chain reconstruction. Int. J. Bioprint. 2023, 9, 727.
    67. 67. Mohseni-Dargah, M.; Pastras, C.; Mukherjee, P.; et al. Finite element analysis of anatomically-modelled prosthetic incus for ossicular chain reconstruction. Comput. Biol. Med. 2025, 187, 109770.
    68. 68. Mohseni-Dargah, M.; Pastras, C.; Mukherjee, P.; et al. Anatomically accurate 3D printed prosthetic incus for ossicular chain reconstruction. Bioprinting 2025, 46, e00393.
    69. 69. Fadda, G.; Merlino, F.; Cavallo, G.; et al. Factors influencing audiologic outcomes in ossiculoplasty for chronic otitis media: A prospective multicentre study. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2024, 44, 400–411.
    70. 70. Yamamoto, K.; Morino, T.; Baba, A.; et al. Long-term outcomes of middle ear regenerative therapy using cell sheet transplantation combined with tympanoplasty. Regen. Ther. 2026, 32, 101111.
    71. 71. Crowson, M.G.; Ramprasad, V.H.; Chapurin, N.; et al. Cost analysis and outcomes of a second-look tympanoplasty-mastoidectomy strategy for cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope 2016, 126, 2574–2579.
    72. 72. Penaranda, D.; Cheng, A.G.; Ahmad, I. Pediatric ossiculoplasty and implications in cholesteatoma surgery. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2025, 33, 383–388.
    73. 73. Honnurappa, V.; Sitima, M.; Vijayendra, V.K. Autologous cartilage ossiculoplasty. Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am. 2026, 59, 461–471.
    74. 74. Andresen, N.S.; Kostadinov, F.; Schlegel, C.; et al. Total ossicular chain reconstruction: Is autologous material better than a TORP? Otol. Neurotol. 2026, 47, 511–516.
    75. 75. Fink, R.; Molinari, G.; Burato, A.; et al. Endoscopic ossiculoplasty: Audiological and surgical outcomes from a multicenter experience with 292 cases. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2025, 282, 5571–5580.
    76. 76. Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Fang, S.; et al. Endoscopic revision surgery for ossicular chain reconstruction: Intraoperative findings and functional outcomes. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2025, 282, 1809–1814.
    77. 77. Lim, C.Y.; Yeo, B.S.Y.; Goh, X.; et al. Outcomes of endoscopic versus microscopic ossicular chain reconstruction—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2025, 135, 1899–1907.
    78. 78. Omer, G.L.; Donato, G.; Abdullah, A.S.; et al. Prognostic scoring systems in ossiculoplasty: A comprehensive review and introduction of a novel predictive index. J. Otol. 2026, 21, 57–64.
    79. 79. James, A.L.; Chandrasekharan, D.P. Ossiculoplasty grading scales and outcomes—Reporting and patient counseling. Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am. 2026, 59, 381–397.
    80. 80. Judd, R.T.; Gluth, M.B.; Gurgel, R.K.; et al. Impact of modifiable surgical factors on ossiculoplasty outcomes after controlling for ear environment risk: a multi-institutional study. Otol. Neurotol. 2025, 46, 1280–1288.
    81. 81. Ebrahimian, A.; Mohammadi, H.; Rosowski, J.J.; et al. Inaccuracies of deterministic finite-element models of human middle ear revealed by stochastic modelling. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 7329.
    82. 82. De Greef, D.; Pires, F.; Dirckx, J.J. Effects of model definitions and parameter values in finite element modeling of human middle ear mechanics. Hear. Res. 2017, 344, 195–206.
    ×