ArticleJournal of otology2025
Comparison between MatriX and mAXIS titanium prosthesis in stapedotomy: prospective study and review of the literature.
Article in Journal of otology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Stapes prostheses play a crucial role in improving auditory performance and facilitating the patient's reintegration into social life. However, determining the ideal characteristics of a prosthesis and identifying the best commercially available option remain challenging. This study aims to compare the outcomes of two different types of prostheses: the MatriX Stapes Prosthesis and the new mAXIS Stapes Prosthesis. Methods: A prospective study was conducted on patients diagnosed with suspected otosclerosis who underwent stapedotomy, receiving either the MatriX or mAXIS prosthesis randomly during surgery. Postoperative follow-ups were conducted for at least one year. Audiometric evaluations were analyzed using statistical tests. Additionally, a systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results: The prospective study included 84 patients, divided into two groups (G1: MatriX, G2: mAXIS). The auditory results were satisfactory for both prostheses, demonstrating their effectiveness in improving hearing thresholds. We observed a gain for air conduction threshold of 26.2 dB vs 21.2 dB with an ABG closure of 20.7 dB vs and 21.2 dB in G1 and G2 respectively. The literature review encompassed 15 studies, revealing overall positive outcomes with different prosthetic materials. Conclusions: The study revealed effective auditory improvement with both prostheses, yet no statistically significant differences in air-bone gap closure or average hearing gain. Titanium emerged as the preferred material due to its biocompatibility, lightweight nature, and stability under magnetic resonance imaging. The mAXIS prosthesis is introduced as a cost-effective alternative with favorable intraoperative features.
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.