Advertisement

The wheel-shaped composite cartilage graft (WsCCG) and temporalis fascia for type 1 tympanoplasty: a prospective, randomized study

  • Ejder Ciğer
  • Mustafa Koray Balcı
  • Akif İşlek
  • Kazım Önal
Otology
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of two different grafts which are used for the reconstruction of subtotal or total tympanic membrane perforations: the wheel-shaped composite cartilage graft (WsCCG) and temporalis fascia (TF).

Methods

Ninety patients (94 ears) who underwent type 1 tympanoplasty for non-complicated chronic otitis media between March 2014 and June 2016 in a tertiary referral center were included in a randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial. Tympanic membranes were reconstructed with the WsCCG or TF.

Results

Outcomes of 91 surgeries performed on 87 adults (> 18 years of age) were evaluated in the study. Forty-three patients (44 ears) were included in the WsCCG group; 44 patients (47 ears) were included in the TF group. The mean post-operative follow-up was 14.9 months for the WsCCG group and 15.1 months for the TF group. There was no statistically significant difference in post-operative pure tone average (PTA) (p = 0.19), air-bone gap (ABG) (p = 0.64), PTA gain (p = 0.82) and ABG closure (p = 0.89) values between two groups. Graft success rates at 6 months after surgery were 82.9% (39/47) and 97.7% (43/44) for TF and WsCCG, respectively. At the first year, success rates were 85.1% (40/47) for TF and 97.7% (43/44) for WsCCG. A statistically significant difference was observed in graft success rates between two groups (p = 0.039).

Conclusions

Both TF and WsCCG lead to satisfactory functional results, but the WsCCG clearly leads to superior anatomical outcomes with a graft success rate of 97.7%. The WsCCG is a suitable graft for subtotal or total tympanic membrane perforations and has the advantages of being a one-piece, flexible, composite, and physically resistant graft.

Keywords

Cartilage Fascia Tympanoplasty Prospective Wheel-shaped composite cartilage graft 

Notes

Funding

The research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Studies involving human or animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Wullstein HL (1952) Funktionelle operationen im Mettelohr mit hilfe des freien spaltlappen transplantates. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 161:422–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tos M (2008) Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139:747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sheehy JL, Glasscock ME (1967) Tympanic membrane grafting with temporalis fascia. Arch Otolaryngol 86:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jansen C (1963) Cartilage-tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 73:1288–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dornhoffer J (2003) Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1000-patient series. Laryngoscope 113:1844–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Indorewala S, Pagare R, Aboojiwala S, Barpande S (2004) Dimensional stability of the free fascia grafts: a human study. Laryngoscope 114:543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Angeli SI, Kulak JL, Guzman J (2006) Lateral tympanoplasty for total or near-total perforation: prognostic factors. Laryngoscope 116:1594–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jung TT, Park SK (2005) Mediolateral graft tympanoplasty for anterior or subtotal tympanic membrane perforation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:532–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vickers AJ (2006) How to randomize. J Soc Integr Oncol 4:194–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium (1995) Guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:186–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shin SH, Lee WS, Kim HN, Lee HK (2007) Wheel-shaped cartilage-perichondrium composite graft for the prevention of retraction pocket development. Acta Otolaryngol 127:25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kartush JM, Michaelides EM, Becvarovski Z, LaRouere MJ (2002) Over-under tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 112:802–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sade J (1979) The atelectatic ear. In: Sade J (ed) Secretory otitis media and its sequelae. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 64–68Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Indorewala S (2002) Dimensional stability of the free fascia grafts: an animal experiment. Laryngoscope 112:727–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velepic M, Starcevic R, Ticac R, Kujundzic M, Velepic M (2012) Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty in children and adults: long term results. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76:663–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roychaudhuri BK (2004) 3-flap tympanoplasty: a simple and sure success technique. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 56:196–200PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fishman AJ, Marrinan MS, Huang TC, Kanowitz SJ (2005) Total tympanic membrane reconstruction: AlloDerm versus temporalis fascia. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:906–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mishra P, Sonkhya N, Mathur N (2007) Prospective study of 100 cases of underlay tympanoplasty with superiorly based circumferential flap for subtotal perforations. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 59:225–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peng R, Lalwani AK (2013) Efficacy of “hammock” tympanoplasty in the treatment of anterior perforations. Laryngoscope 123:1236–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alain H, Esmat NH, Ohad H, Yona V, Nageris BI (2016) Butterfly myringoplasty for total, subtotal, and annular perforations. Laryngoscope 126:2565–2568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh GB, Ranjan S, Arora R, Kumar S (2017) Role of circumferential subannular tympanoplasty in anterior and subtotal perforations. J Laryngol Otol 131:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohamad SH, Khan I, Hussain SS (2012) Is cartilage tympanoplasty more effective than fascia tympanoplasty? A systematic review. Otol Neurotol 33:699–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yung M, Vivekanandan S, Smith P (2011) Randomized study comparing fascia and cartilage grafts in myringoplasty. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 120:535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cabra J, Moñux A (2010) Efficacy of cartilage palisade tympanoplasty: randomized controlled trial. Otol Neurotol 31:589–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Callioglu EE, Ceylan BT, Kuran G, Demirci S, Tulaci KG, Caylan R (2013) Cartilage graft or fascia in tympanoplasty in patients with low middle ear risk index (anatomicaland audological results). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:2833–2837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iacovou E, Vlastarakos PV, Papacharalampous G, Kyrodimos E, Nikolopoulos TP (2013) Is cartilage better than temporalis muscle fascia in type I tympanoplasty? Implications for current surgical practice. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:2803–2813CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ejder Ciğer
    • 1
  • Mustafa Koray Balcı
    • 1
  • Akif İşlek
    • 1
  • Kazım Önal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngologyİzmir Katip Çelebi University Atatürk Training and Research HospitalIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations