• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Eustachian Tube Stent
 

Eustachian Tube Stent

on

  • 519 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
519
Views on SlideShare
517
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0

2 Embeds 2

http://www.lmodules.com 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Eustachian Tube Stent Eustachian Tube Stent Presentation Transcript

    • Pilot study of a resorbable poly-l-lactide Eustachian Tube stent; feasibility and tolerability in two animal models JA Litner M.D., CJ Linstrom M.D., P Presti, MD, CA Silverman Ph.D., S McCormick M.D., GP Yu M.D., J Arigo M.D.
    • Middle Ear Disease Susceptibility is clearly multifactorial Hypoventilation is regarded as the root cause ET dysfunction is the principal culprit
    • Background: The Eustachian tube: *Adam Images and Content under license from adam.com, Inc., © 2002 adam.com, Inc.
    • Theories of Causality Eustachian tubes are mechanically obstructed Tubal stenosis noted in nearly half of chronic ears1 No significant post-mortem alteration in tube caliber2 Eustachian tubes are functionally obstructed Tubal hypercompliance, The Floppy Tube3 Alteration in tubal surface tension dynamics4-8 1Tos M. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 1980;94:25-30 2Sade et al. American Journal of Otology 1986;7(6) 3Bluestone CD. Head and Neck Surgery- Otolaryngology. Ch. 111; 1993 4Miura M et al. Acta Otolaryngologica. 1996;116:840-44 5Fornadley JA et al. Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery. 1994;110:110-4 6Nemechek AJ et al. Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery. 1997;117:475-9 7Passali D et al. Respiration. 1987;51 supp.1:52-9 8Sujana S et al. Laryngoscope. 2004:114 ; 472-485
    • Significance  Most Common Reason For Sick visits to PMD’s for Children <3  5 Billion spent annually1  One Million children undergo myringotomy annually 1  Morbidity associated with MT  Frequent returns to the OR  Over prescription of Abx and rising resistance  No Modality that specifically addresses the underlying pathophysiology: Eustachian Tube Dysfunction 1Gates GA. Otolaryngology Head Neck Surg. 1996;114:525-530 Bluestone CD. Head and Neck Surgery- Otolaryngology. Ch. 111; 1993
    • Historical Interventions ET insufflation prior to 19501 Elaborate surgical shunts, ET irradiation in 1960’s2-4 Armstrong tube invented in 19545 ―Permanent‖ vent tubes Silverstein tube6 Jahn Hydroxylvent tube7 1Shapiro SL. Eye Ear Nose and Throat Monthly. 1969;48:72-7 2Drettner B et al. Archives of Otolaryngology. 1969;90:122-8 3Goode RL et al. Laryngoscope. 1975;85:100-12 4House WF et al. Laryngoscope. 1969;79:1765-82 5Armstrong BW. Archives of Otolaryngology. 1954;59:653-4 6Silverstein H. Archives of Otolaryngology. 1970;91:313-8 7Jahn AF. Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery. 1991;105(5):758-60
    • Problems with Current Approach Medical Increased antibiotic resistance Surgical Extrusion Scarring/Perforation Infection Cholesteatoma Disruption of graft healing Failure to alter natural course About 25% of procedures are repeat
    • ET Stenting Wright Jr., 1976 – Silastic Eustachian Tube Prosthesis (SETP)  Series of 138 patients with average 26 month follow- up  80% had an aerated ME behind intact TM after 6 months  Poor results after 6 months  No serious complications Wright Jr. JW et al. Laryngoscope. 1977;87:207-14 Wright Jr. JW et al. ORL. 1978;86:834-7
    • Hypothesis  Functional restoration most physiologically sensible approach  ET Stenting should augment function and restore ventilation  Success achievable through advances in biomaterials science & capacity to elute drugs  Successful applications to other hollow viscera1-6 1Korpela A et al. Chest. 1999;115:490-95 2Tamai H et al. Circulation. 2000;102:399-404 3Lumiaho J et al. Journal of Urology. 2000;164:1360-3 4Middleton JC et al. Medical Plastics and Biomaterials. 1998;March 5van Berkel A et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2000;51:19-22 6Sung JJY. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 1995;15:152-5
    • Stent Design Issues  Stent Deployment  Stent Retrieval  Indwelling Effects  Perforation  Migration  Occlusion  Extrusion  Ascending infection  Reflux  Autophony/Patulous symptoms  Longevity
    • Specific Aims Aim 1– Explore technical ease Aim 2– Establish safety profile Aim 3– Determine tissue response Aim 4– Assess extent of stent resorption
    • Stent Prototype Manufactured by PPD Méditech Waterville, QC
    • Stent Location
    • Methodology- Study 1  Adult Chinchilla ear model  NYMC Dept. Comp. Med. facility—IACUC approved  Sample size of 5 animals  Baseline tympanograms & otomicroscopy  Stent implanted randomly via transbullar approach  Remaining ear matched control
    • Methodology All animals treated with peri-operative systemic antibiotics Serial testing at 4,6,8,10,14,18,22,26 weeks Digital otomicro photos taken at each interval One animal sacrificed at 10, 18, & 26 weeks Temporal bones sectioned and evaluated blindly by head and neck pathologist Statistical comparison of between-group differences in ME pressures over time
    • Results 2 animals died intra-operatively due to respiratory arrest Follow-up available for 3 animals up to time of sacrifice One animal developed transient post-operative otorrhea in implanted ear via existing myringotomy incision; resolved with ototopical antibiotics
    • Otomicroscopy Baseline 4 weeks 12 weeks 26 weeks Test Ear Control Ear
    • Tympanometry 100 100 Animal #1, Control ear 75 Animal #1, Test ear 75 Peak Compliance Peak Compliance 50 50 (daPa) 25 (daPa) 25 0 0 -25 -25 -50 -50 -75 -75 -100 -100 Base 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 26 Base 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 26 Time (weeks) Time (weeks) 100 Control 100 Test Peak Compliance (daPa) Animal #2, Control ear 75 Animal #2, Test ear 75 50 Peak Compliance Peak Compliance 50 25 25 (daPa) (daPa) Ear 0 -25 -25 0 Ear -50 -50 -75 -75 -100 -100 -125 -125 Base 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 26 Base 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 26 Time (weeks) Time (weeks) 100 100 75 Animal #3, Control ear 75 Animal #3, Test ear Peak Compliance Peak Compliance 50 50 (daPa) 25 (daPa) 25 0 0 Data Points -25 -25 -50 Zero Point -50 -75 -75 -100 -100 Base 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 26 Base 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 26 Time (weeks) Time (weeks)
    • Pathology– Gross
    • Pathology– Micro N Control Ear LP C Original Magnification x 60 O B TVP
    • Pathology– Micro N C Test Ear LP Original Magnification x 60 O TVP B
    • Pathology– Micro Control Ear Test Ear G G
    • Pathology– Micro TZ C Test Ear
    • Stent Resorption
    • Data Analysis Number Mean Standard Z value† P value Peak Compliance(daPa) deviation Animal #1 Left 5 6.0 8.2 0.00 >0.05 Right 5 8.0 26.1 Animal #2 Left 9 -11.7 48.5 2.49 0.013 Right 9 -40.6 58.4 Animal #3 Left 7 8.6 22.7 1.89 0.058 Right 7 -17.9 46.4 † Wilcoxon signed ranks test.
    • Methodology- Study 2  Adult NZ White Rabbit ear model  NYMC Dept. Comp. Med. facility—IACUC approved  Sample size of 10 animals  Similar study protocol- serial otomicroscopy at 2 week intervals  All animals sacrificed at 6 months
    • Results Findings on Otomicroscopy in Test Ears Test Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Animal 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17 –18 19-20 21 –22 23-24 #1 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #2 OM OM and Facial Resolved Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Cellulitis OM #3 Normal Normal Normal Normal OM OM Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #4 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #5 Normal Normal OM Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #6 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #7 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #8 OM Resolved Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #9 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal #10 Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
    • Results Histologic Findings at 6 months Specimen Implanted Ear Control Ear 1 No Inflammation No Inflammation 2 No Inflammation No Inflammation 3 No Inflammation No Inflammation / Cholesteatoma 4 No Inflammation No Inflammation 5 No Inflammation No Inflammation 6 No Inflammation No Inflammation 7 No Inflammation No Inflammation 8 No Inflammation No Inflammation 9 No Inflammation No Inflammation 10 No Inflammation No Inflammation
    • Results Transient infections in 4 test ears No chronic inflammatory response in all test ears after 6-month incubation No remnants of stents noted at 6 months
    • Conclusions Stents were easily implanted Stents were well tolerated with development of transient otorrhea in few subjects Stents engendered negligible inflammatory response Differential resorption- Stents were minimally resorbed at 6 months in the Chinchilla model
    • Future Directions Technology merits further testing for efficacy Determine appropriate sterilization procedures Clarify resorption spectrum Explore use of surface agents or drug elution to improve biocompatilibity and reduce biofilm
    • Acknowledgments Dr. Ellen Levee, DVM for supervision of animal care New York Medical College DCM Staff PPD Meditech, 50 Raymond, Waterville, QC for manufacture and supply of stent prototypes