The Fate of Gelatin Film in the Middle Ear

Holzer, Franklin

doi:10.1001/archotol.1973.00780020331009

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the 1950s,6 various types of packing agents have been explored in the ME cavity for postoperative use. Based on their reabsorbability, these packing agents can be broadly classified into nonabsorbable and absorbable MEPAs (Table I).…”

Section: Middle Ear Packing Agents and Their Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the need for a second stage surgery to remove these agents, when necessary, makes them less favorable 25. Furthermore, nonabsorbable MEPA may serve as a potential nidus of infection, leading to subsequent graft loss and rejection 6, 8…”

Section: Middle Ear Packing Agents and Their Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of ME packing in otologic surgery spans the last 60 years with the introduction of Gelfoam by Zollner and Wullstein 6. The primary aims of packing are to provide support to the TM and ossicular grafts, aerate the ME cavity, and for hemostasis 7–9.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

To pack or not to pack? A contemporary review of middle ear packing agents

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Middle ear packing agents are used in otologic surgery to provide support to the middle ear structures, maintain aeration of the middle ear, and promote hemostasis. However, there is currently a lack of standardization regarding the use of different types of packing agents. The choice of materials and how they are used remain controversial. In fact, some have recently advocated for no packing. In view of this, this review focuses on the types of materials available, a brief historical account of each material, characteristics of an ideal packing agent, and a discussion on the techniques of insertion to optimize surgical outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Middle Ear Packing Agents and Their Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Middle Ear Packing Agents and Their Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To pack or not to pack? A contemporary review of middle ear packing agents

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gelfilm was suggested [Holzer, 1973;Falbe-Hansen and Tos, 1975] instead of Gelfoam because it causes less adhesion owing to its nonporous structure [McGhee and Dornhoffer, 1999], but it has the disadvantage of application because of its hardness [Shen et al, 2011]. Hyaluronic acid was proved to be safe [Laurent et al, 1988;Bagger-Sjoback et al, 1993;Angeli et al, 2007;Jang et al, 2008b] in the ME, and various modified forms were tried to improve its stability such as its esterified form, Merogel [Martini et al, 2000].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and Efficacy of Chitosan-Dextran Hydrogel in the Middle Ear in an Animal Model

Ünsaler

Başaran²,

Sarı³

et al. 2016

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy of chitosan-dextran hydrogel (CDH) in preventing postoperative adhesions between the tympanic membrane (TM) and intratympanic structures, and to evaluate its ototoxicity in an animal study. Methods: In the first step, ototoxicity was evaluated with 7 male albino guinea pigs (GPs) via auditory brainstem responses (ABR) before and 4 weeks after unilateral intratympanic injection of CDH and saline solution contralaterally. In the second step, 12 GPs underwent bilateral ear surgery. The middle ear (ME) mucosa was abraded, and the cavity was filled with CDH on one side and packed with Gelfoam on the contralateral side. A control group of 6 GPs underwent the same procedure except that no material was applied in the ME. The animals were euthanized at the end of the 7th week, and otomicroscopic findings were noted and the temporal bones harvested for the histologic examination. The findings were scored and compared. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the pre- and postoperative ABR thresholds. In the otomicroscopic findings, the most prominent difference between the two groups was the presence of retraction of the TM in the Gelfoam group. The histopathologic findings revealed a higher degree of inflammation in the Gelfoam group compared with the CDH group. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that CDH has no ototoxic effects in GPs. Its use as an ME packing material revealed significantly less TM retraction and inflammatory reaction compared with Gelfoam.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3]. Middle ear packing is often used to support the TM and ossicular prostheses, regeneration of middle ear mucosa, ventilation and hemostasis [4][5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%