Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2009; 25(3): 190-203
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1239446
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Ear Epistheses as an Alternative to Autogenous Reconstruction

Philipp A. Federspil1 , 2
  • 1Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • 2Vice president of the International Association for Surgical Prosthetics and Episthetics (IASPE, Linz, Austria)
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 October 2009 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

An ear episthesis is an artificial substitute for the auricle. The term ear prosthesis is used synonymously. The breakthrough came with the introduction of the modern silicones and their colorings. Although there are still indications for noninvasive methods of retention such as medical adhesives, the best and most reliable method of fixation is by bone anchorage. Long-lasting osseointegration with reaction-free skin penetration can be achieved with titanium implants. The first system used extraorally was the Brånemark flange fixture. Later, different solitary titanium implants were introduced, such as the ITI system. A different strategy used the titanium grids (Epitec) or plates (Epiplating) derived from osteosynthesis systems. These systems are fixed subperiosteally with several bone screws and are therefore also labeled as grouped implants. With these modern developments, secure retention can be achieved also in unfavorable anatomic situations. The grouped systems are resistant to torque with abutment insertion. The latest development is the subcutaneously implanted double magnet without skin penetration. The advantages of implant retained ear epistheses include optimal camouflage, predictable cosmetic results, fast rehabilitation, no donor site morbidity, and early detection of tumor recurrence. Depending on the clinical setting, prosthetic rehabilitation may be more than just an alternative to plastic reconstructive surgery.

KEYWORDS

Episthesis - auricular prosthesis - craniofacial prosthesis - titanium - osseointegrated implant - implant retained - bone anchorage - plate

REFERENCES

  • 1 Ring M E. The history of maxillofacial prosthetics.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;  87 174-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Federspil P, Federspil P A. [Prosthetic management of craniofacial defects].  HNO. 1998;  46 569-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tjellström A, Lindström J, Hallén O, Albrektsson T, Brånemark P I. Osseointegrated titanium implants in the temporal bone. A clinical study on bone-anchored hearing aids.  Am J Otol. 1981;  2 304-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tjellström A, Lindström J, Nylén O et al.. The bone-anchored auricular episthesis.  Laryngoscope. 1981;  91 811-815
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Toljanic J A, Eckert S E, Roumanas E et al.. Osseointegrated craniofacial implants in the rehabilitation of orbital defects: an update of a retrospective experience in the United States.  J Prosthet Dent. 2005;  94 177-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Granström G, Bergström K, Odersjö M, Tjellström A. Osseointegrated implants in children: experience from our first 100 patients.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;  125 85-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Han K, Son D. Osseointegrated alloplastic ear reconstruction with the implant-carrying plate system in children.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;  109 496-503 discussion 504-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Berghaus A. Implantate für die rekonstruktive Chirurgie der Nase und des Ohres.  Laryngorhinootologie. 2007;  86(Suppl 1) 67-76
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Siegert R, Magritz R. Die Rekonstruktion des äusseren Ohres.  Laryngorhinootologie. 2007;  86(Suppl 1) 121-140
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Staudenmaier R. Optimierung der Ohrmuschelrekonstruktion mit autologem Rippenknorpel. Erfahrung aus 120 Fällen.  HNO. 2006;  54 749-755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brånemark P I, Hansson B O, Adell R et al.. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period.  Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;  16 1-132
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Albrektsson T, Eriksson A R, Friberg B et al.. Histologic investigations on 33 retrieved Nobelpharma implants.  Clin Mater. 1993;  12 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zarb G A, Albrektsson T. Osseointegration - a requiem for the periodontal ligament?.  Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1991;  11 88-91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Albrektsson T, Brånemark P I, Hansson H A, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man.  Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;  52 155-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schön R, Schmelzeisen R, Shirota T, Ohno K, Michi K. Tissue reaction around miniplates used for the fixation of vascularized iliac crest bone grafts.  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997;  83 433-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hwang K, Schmitt J M, Hollinger J O. Interface between titanium miniplate/screw and human calvaria.  J Craniofac Surg. 2000;  11 184-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Miller K L, Faulkner G, Wolfaardt J F. Misfit and functional loading of craniofacial implants.  Int J Prosthodont. 2004;  17 267-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Federspil P A, Federspil P, Schneider M H. Magnetverankerung in der Epithetik. In: Blankenstein F Magnete in der Zahnmedizin. Rottweil, Germany; Flohr Verlag 2001: 104-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Siegert R, Stemmann H. Neue klinische Erfahrungen mit subkutanen Magnetattachments. Presented at: 19 Internationales Symposium für Chirurgische Prothetik und Epithetik October 10–12, 2008 Fachklinik Hornheide, Münster
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Granström G. Craniofacial osseointegration.  Oral Dis. 2007;  13 261-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Köle H, Wirth F. Befestigung von Epithesen mit Gerüstimplantaten.  Fortschr Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1956;  2 187-189
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Köle H. Erfahrungen mit Gerüstimplantaten unter die Schleimhaut und Haut zur Befestigung von Prothesen und Epithesen.  Fortschr Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1965;  10 76-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Farmand M. Ein neues Implantat-System für die Befestigung von Epithesen (Epitec®-System).  Dtsch Z Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1991;  15 421-427
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Federspil P A, Plinkert P K. Knochenverankerte Hörgeräte immer beidseitig!.  HNO. 2002;  50 405-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hölzl M, Caffier P, Jungk J, Scherer H, Schrom T. Das Ti-Epiplating-System für die Knochenverankerung von Hörhilfen.  Laryngorhinootologie. 2007;  86 193-199
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sandner A, Bloching M. Erfahrungen mit einem subperiostalen Plattensystem aus Titan (“Ti-Epiplating-System”) zur epithetischen Rehabilitation von Mittelgesichts- und Orbitadefekten.  Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2004;  221 978-984
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Volkenstein S, Dazert S, Jahnke K, Schneider M, Neumann A. Epithetische Versorgung von Gewebedefekten in Kopfbereich.  Laryngorhinootologie. 2007;  86 854-860
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Watson R M, Coward T J, Forman G H. Results of treatment of 20 patients with implant-retained auricular prostheses.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;  10 445-449
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tolman D E, Taylor P F. Bone-anchored craniofacial prosthesis study: irradiated patients.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 612-619
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Parel S M, Tjellström A. The United States and Swedish experience with osseointegration and facial prostheses.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;  6 75-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wolfaardt J F, Wilkes G H, Parel S M, Tjellström A. Craniofacial osseointegration: the Canadian experience.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;  8 197-204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Junker O H. Epithetische Rehabilitation kraniofazialer Defekte. Eine Langzeituntersuchung über 12 Jahre bei 200 Patienten. Thesis, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany; 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Farmand M. Die epithetische Rehablitation von Patienten mit Gesichtsdefekten mit dem Epitec-System - Grundlagen, Prinzipien, Resultate -. In: Schwipper V, Tilkorn H, Sander U Fortschritte in der kraniofazialen chirurgischen Epithetik und Prothetik. Reinbek, Germany; Einhorn-Presse-Verlag 1997: 78-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Visser A, Raghoebar G M, van Oort R P, Vissink A. Fate of implant-retained craniofacial prostheses: life span and aftercare.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;  23 89-98
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Granström G. Osseointegration in irradiated cancer patients: an analysis with respect to implant failures.  J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;  63 579-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Donoff R B. Treatment of the irradiated patient with dental implants: the case against hyperbaric oxygen treatment.  J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;  64 819-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Holgers K M, Roupe G, Tjellström A, Bjursten L M. Clinical, immunological and bacteriological evaluation of adverse reactions to skin-penetrating titanium implants in the head and neck region.  Contact Dermatitis. 1992;  27 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Scholz M, Eufinger H, Anders A et al.. Intracerebral abscess after abutment change of a bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA).  Otol Neurotol. 2003;  24 896-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Weerda G H. [Retention elements for external ear epitheses].  HNO. 1972;  20 83-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. Med. Philipp A Federspil

University Hospital Heidelberg, Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Email: federspil@med.uni-heidelberg.de