ArticleJournal of otology2022
FDA MAUDE database analysis of titanium middle ear prosthesis.
Article in Journal of otology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A MAUDE database analysis on the new generation of active bone conduction hearing implants.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Titanium Biohybrid Middle Ear Prostheses: A PreliminaryJournal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePartial ossicular replacement (PORP) and total ossicular replacement prostheses (TORP) are used to restore ossicular chain function. Despite favorable auditory outcomes, these interventions have associated risks and complications. This study examines the FDA MAUDE database for ossicular chain prosthesis adverse events to highlight complications, interventions, and root cause analysis (RCA) findings. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe MAUDE database was searched for Medical Device Reports (MDRs) relating to PORPs and TORPs from 2010 to 2020. MDR event descriptions were reviewed, and adverse events were identified as a device issue, patient issue, and/or packaging issue that occurred intraoperatively or postoperatively.
resultsOur search identified 70 MDRs which included 110 reported adverse events. Events consisted of 63 device issues, often due to device breaks and displacements, 39 patient issues, including common complaints of hearing loss and erosion, and 8 packaging issues. When comparing PORPs and TORPs, TORPs had more reported device issues whereas PORPs had more packaging issues. Intraoperative device issues were commonly resolved by completing the procedure with a backup device and most postoperative device issues required additional surgery. For devices returned to the manufacturer, RCA determined that most breaks were caused by modification and/or mishandling or that the product met specifications with an undetermined cause for the break.
conclusionDevice issues were the most common adverse events and frequently required subsequent intervention. Displacement occurred more often with TORPs and was associated with changes in hearing or erosion. The findings of this study are purely descriptive and may not have direct clinical relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.