Feasibility of 3D-printed middle ear prostheses in partial ossicular chain reconstruction
Despite advances in prosthesis materials, operating microscopes and surgical techniques during the last 50 years, long-lasting hearing improvement remains a challenge in ossicular chain reconstruction. Failures in the reconstruction are mainly due to inadequate length or shape of the prosthesis, or defects in the surgical procedure. 3D-printed middle ear prosthesis might offer a solution to individualize treatment and obtain better results. The aim of the study was to study the possibilities and limitations of 3D-printed middle ear prostheses. Design of the 3D-printed prosthesis was inspired by a commercial titanium partial ossicular replacement prosthesis. 3D models of different lengths (1.5–3.0 mm) were created with Solidworks 2019–2021 software. The prostheses were 3D-printed with vat photopolymerization using liquid photopolymer Clear V4. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3D printing were evaluated with micro-CT imaging. The acoustical performance of the prostheses was determined in cadaver temporal bones with laser Doppler vibrometry. In this paper, we present an outline of individualized middle ear prosthesis manufacturing. 3D printing accuracy was excellent when comparing dimensions of the 3D-printed prostheses and their 3D models. Reproducibility of 3D printing was good if the diameter of the prosthesis shaft was 0.6 mm. 3D-printed partial ossicular replacement prostheses were easy to manipulate during surgery even though they were a bit stiffer and less flexible than conventional titanium prostheses. Their acoustical performance was similar to that of a commercial titanium partial ossicular replacement prosthesis. It is possible to 3D print functional individualized middle ear prostheses made of liquid photopolymer with good accuracy and reproducibility. These prostheses are currently suitable for otosurgical training. Further research is needed to explore their usability in a clinical setting. In the future, 3D printing of individualized middle ear prostheses may provide better audiological outcomes for patients.
1. Luers JC, Hüttenbrink KB, 2016, Surgical anatomy and pathology of the middle ear. J Anat, 228(2):338–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12389
2. Rondini-Gilli E, Grayeli AB, Borges Crosara PF, et al., 2003, Ossiculoplasty with total hydroxylapatite prostheses anatomical and functional outcomes. Otol Neurotol, 24(4):543–547. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200307000-00003
3. Colletti V, Carner M, Colletti L, 2009, TORP vs round window implant for hearing restoration of patients with extensive ossicular chain defect. Acta Otolaryngol, 129(4):449–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480802642070
4. Alaani A, Raut VV, 2010, Kurz titanium prosthesis ossiculoplasty—Follow-up statistical analysis of factors affecting one year hearing results. Auris Nasus Larynx, 37(2):150–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2009.05.004
5. Yung M, Smith P, 2010, Titanium versus nontitanium ossicular prostheses—A randomized controlled study of the medium-term outcome. Otol Neurotol, 31(5):752–758. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181de4937
6. Babighian G, Albu S, 2011, Stabilising total ossicular replacement prosthesis for ossiculoplasty with an absent malleus in canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy—A randomised controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol, 36(6):543–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2011.02406.x
7. Hess-Erga J, Møller P, Vassbotn FS, 2013, Long-term hearing result using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 270(6):1817–1821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2218-x
8. Chen Z, Sun X, Zhou H, et al., 2014, Comparison of hearing results of malleovestibulopexy and total ossicular replacement prosthesis for chronic otitis media patients with a mobile stapes footplate. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 123(5):343–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489414526366
9. Fayad JN, Ursick J, Brackmann DE, et al., 2014, Total ossiculoplasty: Short- and long-term results using a titanium prosthesis with footplate shoe. Otol Neurotol, 35(1):108–113. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182a475ac
10. Roux A, Bakhos D, Villeneuve A, et al., 2015, Does checking the placement of ossicular prostheses via the posterior tympanotomy improve hearing results after cholesteatoma surgery? Otol Neurotol, 36(9):1499–1503. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000000840
11. Atila NE, Kilic K, Sakat MS, et al., 2016, Stabilization of total ossicular replacement prosthesis using cartilage “shoe” graft. Am J Otolaryngol, 37(2):74–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2015.12.001
12. Gostian AO, Kouamé JM, Bremke M, et al., 2016, Long-term results of the cartilage shoe technique to anchor a titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis on the stapes footplate after type III tympanoplasty. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 142(11):1094–1099. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.2118
13. O’Connell BP, Rizk HG, Hutchinson T, et al., 2016, Long-term outcomes of titanium ossiculoplasty in chronic otitis media. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 154(6):1084–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599816633669
14. Ulku CH, 2017, Endoscopy-assisted ear surgery for treatment of chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma, adhesion, or retraction pockets. J Craniofac Surg, 28(4):1017–1020. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003671
15. Wood CB, Yawn R, Lowery AS, et al., 2019, Long-term hearing outcomes following total ossicular reconstruction with titanium prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 161(1):123–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819831284
16. Gottlieb PK, Li X, Monfared A, et al., 2016, First results of a novel adjustable-length ossicular reconstruction prosthesis in temporal bones. Laryngoscope, 126(11):2559–2564. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25901
17. Hirsch JD, Vincent RL, Eisenman DJ, 2017, Surgical reconstruction of the ossicular chain with custom 3D printed ossicular prosthesis. 3D Print Med, 3(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-017-0015-2
18. Stoppe T, Bornitz M, Lasurashvili N, et al., 2018, Function, applicability, and properties of a novel flexible total ossicular replacement prosthesis with a silicone coated ball and socket joint. Otol Neurotol, 39(6):739–747. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001797
19. Stoppe T, Bornitz M, Lasurashvili N, et al., 2017, Middle ear reconstruction with a flexible prosthesis. Curr Dir Biomed Eng, 3:143–146. https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2017-0030
20. Milazzo M, Danti S, Inglese F, et al., 2017, Ossicular replacement prostheses from banked bone with ergonomic and functional geometry. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 105(8):2495–2506. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33790
21. Hillman TA, Shelton C, 2003, Ossicular chain reconstruction: Titanium versus plastipore. Laryngoscope, 113(10):1731– 1735. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200310000-00013
22. Zhang LC, Zhang TY, Dai PD, et al., 2011, Titanium versus non-titanium prostheses in ossiculoplasty: A meta-analysis. Acta Otolaryngol, 131(7):708–715. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2011.556662
23. Dalchow CV, Grün D, Stupp HF, 2001, Reconstruction of the ossicular chain with titanium implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 125(6):628–630. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2001.120397
24. Truy E, Naiman AN, Pavillon C, et al., 2007, Hydroxyapatite versus titanium ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol, 28(4):492–498. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000265203.92743.d1
25. Coffey CS, Lee FS, Lambert PR, 2008, Titanium versus nontitanium prostheses in ossiculoplasty. Laryngoscope, 118(9):1650–1658. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e31817bd807
26. Redaelli de Zinis LO, 2008, Titanium vs hydroxyapatite ossiculoplasty in canal wall down mastoidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 134(12):1283–1287. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.134.12.1283
27. Ocak E, Beton S, Meço C, et al., 2015, Titanium versus hydroxyapatite prostheses: Comparison of hearing and anatomical outcomes after ossicular chain reconstruction. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 53(1):15–18. https://doi.org/10.5152/tao.2015.775
28. Mäkitie AA, Salmi M, Lindford A, et al., 2016, Three-dimensional printing for restoration of the donor face: A new digital technique tested and used in the first facial allotransplantation patient in Finland. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 69(12):1648–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.09.021
29. Tuomi J, Paloheimo KS, Vehviläinen J, et al., 2014, A novel classification and online platform for planning and documentation of medical applications of additive manufacturing. Surg Innov, 21(6):553–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350614524838
30. VanKoevering KK, Hollister SJ, Green GE, 2017, Advances in 3-dimensional printing in otolaryngology: A review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 143(2):178–183. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3002
31. Soetedjo AAP, Lee JM, Lau HH, et al., 2021, Tissue engineering and 3D printing of bioartificial pancreas for regenerative medicine in diabetes. Trends Endocrinol Metab, 32(8):609–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2021.05.007
32. Bandyopadhyay A, Mitra I, Bose S, 2020, 3D printing for bone regeneration. Curr Osteoporos Rep, 18(5):505–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00606-2
33. Brunello G, Sivolella S, Meneghello R, et al., 2016, Powder-based 3D printing for bone tissue engineering. Biotechnol Adv, 34(5):740–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.03.009
34. Kamrava B, Gerstenhaber JA, Amin M, et al., 2017, Preliminary model for the design of a custom middle ear prosthesis. Otol Neurotol, 38(6):839–845. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001403
35. Milazzo M, Muyshondt PGG, Carstensen J, et al., 2020, De novo topology optimization of total ossicular replacement prostheses. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 103:103541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103541
36. Akmal JS, Salmi M, Hemming B, et al., 2020, Cumulative inaccuracies in implementation of additive manufacturing through medical imaging, 3D thresholding, and 3D modeling: A case study for an end-use implant. Appl Sci, 10(8):2968. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10082968
37. Chekurov S, Salmi M, Verboeket V, et al., 2021, Assessing industrial barriers of additively manufactured digital spare part implementation in the machine-building industry: A cross-organizational focus group interview study. J Manuf Technol Manag, 32(4):909–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2020-0239
38. Verboeket V, Khajavi SH, Krikke H, et al., 2021, Additive manufacturing for localized medical parts production: A case study. IEEE Access, 9:25818–25834. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3056058
39. Valtonen I, Rautio S, Salmi M, 2022, Capability development in hybrid organizations: Enhancing military logistics with additive manufacturing. Progr Addit Manuf, 7(5):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-022-00280-z
40. Heiland KE, Goode RL, Asai M, et al., 1999, A human temporal bone study of stapes footplate movement. Am J Otol, 20(1):81–86.
41. Hato N, Stenfelt S, Goode RL, 2003, Three-dimensional stapes footplate motion in human temporal bones. Audiol Neurootol, 8(3):140–152. https://doi.org/10.1159/000069475
42. Sim JH, Chatzimichalis M, Lauxmann M, et al., 2010, Complex stapes motions in human ears. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 11(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-010-0207-6
43. Kemp P, Stralen JV, De Graaf P, et al., 2020, Cone-beam CT compared to multi-slice CT for the diagnostic analysis of conductive hearing loss: A feasibility study. J Int Adv Otol, 16(2):222–226. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2020.5883