RE: BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF NITINOL STAPES

Abstract:To the Editor: Roosli et al. (1) are to be commended for their interesting article, ‘‘Biocompatibility of Nitinol Stapes Prosthesis.’’ The authors noted the possible disadvantages of the nitinol stapes prosthesis: ‘‘thermal damage or strangulation of the incus and its mucoperiosteum or nickel intolerance.’’ Roosli’s group investigated the morphologic aspects of fixation to the incus of the prosthesis, examining the middle ear mucosal alterations related to the use of the prosthesis, and identified any effects on the incus itself. They found that two explants had superficial erosions of the incus that did not alter prosthesis stability. Diffusive nickel deposition in the middle ear mucosa was not experimentally detected. However, Roosli’s group noted that ‘‘caution must be maintained in patients with a known allergy to nickel.’’ They also noted that ‘‘it remains unclear if a longer follow-up would result in a higher incidence of bone erosion.’’ The SMart piston developed by Knox and Reitan (2) takes advantage of the bonding structure between the nickel and titanium atoms that allows the shape memory effect to be possible (3). A prototype of an improved prosthesis is being evaluated (4). The prosthesis is gold plated to avoid allergic reactions. Heat can still be transmitted to activate the shape memory. The crook or contact area of the prosthesis is coated with Polytef to insulate the incus against any heating effects. Nickel allergy may possibly play a role in a small subset of patients implanted with nitinol devices. Heating nitinol devices while activating the shape memory crimping may place the incus at risk for thermal injury. The improved device is intended to avoid allergic reactions by using gold plating. Thermal injury may be avoided by Polytef insulation of the crook.

Medicine