Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Nov;270(12):3005-17. doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2388-1. Epub 2013 Feb 12.

PORP vs. TORP: a meta-analysis.

Author information

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Shanghai Eye and ENT Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 200031, Shanghai, China.


After the surgical procedure of ossicular chain reconstruction, the effectiveness and/or stability of partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP) or total ossicular replacement prosthesis (TORP) were systematically compared and evaluated using meta-analysis. A total of 40 eligible investigations with 4,311 subjects were included in our study. There was a significant difference in the effectiveness of the reconstruction of the ossicular chain between PORP and TORP; the data showed a combined risk ratio (RR) of 1.28 (95 % CI 1.17-1.41, p < 0.00001), but no notable difference was obtained in staged procedures subgroup and cholesteatoma subgroup, with a combined RR of 1.13 (95 % CI 0.60-2.11, p = 0.70) in staged procedures subgroup and RR of 2.60 (95 % CI 0.20-36.21, p = 0.59 in cholesteatoma subgroup). There was a statistically significant difference in the stability of the prostheses in long-term follow-up, with a combined RR of 0.37 (95 % CI 0.16-0.85, p = 0.02), but no significant difference was observed in the total sample, with a combined RR of 0.64 (95 % CI 0.40-1.03, p = 0.06). Our overall results suggest that the effectiveness of PORP was higher than TORP, except within staged procedures subgroup and cholesteatoma subgroup. In addition, the stability of PORP was significantly superior to TORP in long-term follow-ups, but no significant effect was detected in the general study.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer
    Loading ...
    Support Center